The Rape of America

An excellent article that should be passed around and emailed to everybody on your list:

The Rape of America
By Robin of Berkeley – American Thinker

Let’s start by analyzing the mind of a rapist. His goal:  Domination and absolute power, through any means necessary.

His motivation: punishing another, degrading her, feeling superior and God-like. Making her feel like an object, nothing, a no-thing.

What else propels him? Taking what he wants just because he wants it. Feeling the surge of power, the adrenaline rush, the thrill of stealing a piece of her.

Anything else? Feeding primitive, twisted impulses; expressing sadistic needs; the savage excitement of subjugating and controlling another.

Those most likely to rape? Someone who was sexually abused himself, an outsider, a person robbed of a normal childhood. A man who has carved an identity out of rage and envy and resentment. Someone who feels entitled to take whatever he wants.

What fosters rape? Parents missing in action. A culture that thumbs its nose at God.

And a society that minimizes crime, that even heralds certain criminals as heroes. (Some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they’re revered as idols.) A culture where punishment is weak and politicians are moral cowards, fearful of the ACLU.

What else? A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying. Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists whose words slice and dice women. Films where anything goes, where hot lesbian sex scenes are as omnipresent as those boneheaded authority figures.

And the aftermath of rape? The destruction of something in the victim that will never return: a feeling of safety in the world, in her own body. The nightmare of being treated as an animal — no, worse than this, since animals are now venerated. And from this nightmare she may never completely awaken.

This, in a nutshell, is how rape works. But words alone can never capture the enormity, the horror, the soul-crushing evil of rape. And not only females can be victims; men and little boys are violated, with women, on rare occasions, as perpetrators.

The word “rape” has an intriguing history. It originally denoted the violent seizure of property. I’m going to use the term in both the historic and modern sense to convey what is happening today.

This country is being raped.

It’s no coincidence that the race for the presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton — a high-tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled.

But the abuse of Clinton was a walk in the park compared to what has been done to Sarah Palin. Because she’s a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the debasement has progressed at a fever pitch.

And just like in a gang rape, people who could have done something about it didn’t. In fact, the liberal media and many Democrats have stood around watching, egging on the players.

Can someone explain to me how the Democrats’ complicity is any different from what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School? There, a gang of boys raped and beat a girl as a crowd not only snickered, but filmed the assault.

We also have the economic rapes, the constant shrieks of “Gimme, gimme.” Give me what you have because I want it. Whether it’s the iPod torn from your ear, or a big chunk of your income, or your standard of living, no matter. I want it, I demand it, give it to me.

Or the intrusions into our very bodies by ObamaCare’s Biggest of Big Brothers. Our medical records, our personal information, our physician/patient relationship, our DNA — they want it, so they will take it from us.

And now that the Left has finally appropriated our health care and our student loans, our banks and newspapers and automobile companies, are they happy? Satisfied? Grateful, for God’s sake?

No, the mocking continues, the outright threats and the violence escalate. Suddenly conservatives are not simply opponents exercising First Amendment rights. We’re delusional, crazy, violent, not quite human.

This is what happens when miscreants get away with immoral behavior. In the criminal arena, when the bad guys are given a wink-wink, or a “boys will be boys,” or, “He’s a victim of white privilege,” the perp becomes more emboldened. And he’s even more contemptuous of a culture that lets him get away with, quite literally at times, murder.

Still not convinced that what’s going on is a Rape of America?

What about the queering of children, our School Czar having a history of teaching kids about fisting and water sports? Or schoolchildren being subjected to graphic talks by transsexuals or transvestites or  promoters of the sexuality du jour?

What about forcing their way into young, impressionable minds, teaching them to hate? Like Palestinian children programmed to despise Israelis, our kids also learn animosity — but toward America.

Still not sure that the sexualization of children, the wilding of women, the looting of the economy, and the intrusions into our bodies constitute the Rape of America?

I have one final piece of evidence. A majority of citizens are shouting “No,” from the rooftops. No! to ObamaCare. No! to socialism. No! to trashing the Constitution.

And yet, to Obama and the Left, the assertion of “No” does not matter. Smug and entitled, drunk with power and giddy when they see our fear, they take what they want anyway.

—–

A frequent AT contributor, Robin is a recovering liberal and a psychotherapist in Berkeley.

Explore posts in the same categories: politics

18 Comments on “The Rape of America”

  1. CavMom Says:

    To his offenses I would like to add Aggravated Assault on our Constitution, Grand Theft of our tax monies, and Vandalism of our morals. Of course he will claim the lesser offense of being an Accessory After the Fact because it was George’s fault.

  2. yonason Says:

    And the MSM is the equivalent of a date-rape drug that confuses the victim into thinking she really wants to do this.

  3. Jeremiah Says:

    This is one of the most absurd articles I’ve ever read, and I’ve read some pretty absurd articles. First of all, most of the comments meant to define rape at the beginning of the article, besides having nothing to do with politics or policy in America, are either misleading or simply wrong.

    A culture that “thumbs it’s nose at god” has no correlation to rape; if it were the case, why would so many catholic priests and godly conservatives be involved in rape scandals? In addition, the parenthetical “Some Black Panthers were rapists, yet they’re revered as idols.” is A. Completely random, and B. Totally misrepresentative. I once again point you to the fact that some Catholic priests were rapists, yet they’re revered as idols. So what? Also, what does “fear of the ACLU” have to do with rape?

    I also don’t know of any information that supports a correlation between rape and “A media that celebrates debauchery, that entertains through degrading and objectifying. Popular rap songs and cool hip-hop artists…” etc. Rape was incredibly common in the Victorian era, for instance, long before any of listed causes existed.

    Palin got a hard time with the press because of her blunders to the same capacity that anyone ever gets a hard time in the press; how is that in any way “rape”? Let me also skip to my favorite comment in the whole article: “Can someone explain to me how the Democrats’ complicity is any different from what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School?” Yeah, I can. One case involved a political battle between democrats and republicans that involved a great deal of press exposure and the focus of the public eye. The other case involved a bunch of high schoolers gang raping a girl. Big difference right there; I’m pretty sure that the girl invovled in the Richmond High School incident would take some offense at her treatment being compared in any capacity to the treatment of Sarah Palin by the press.

    The only thing that the article does is throw around the word “rape” with and “socialist” and “Black Panther” in an attempt to pile as many unrelated negative connotative terms on top of Obama? Liberals in general? and hope that they stick. There’s no real information, it’s just a long emotionally spurred smear campaign.


    • Touched a nerve, did it?

      LOL!

      Yeah, that’s the problem with liberals; they can’t separate metaphorical from literal and therefore miss out on the impressionistic aspects which drive the point home.

      Cheers

  4. teach5 Says:

    Dennis Prager read this yesterday. Glad it’s posted here. The author is clear and concise, without the emotion one would expect, given the subject,especially from a former liberal.

  5. PB-in-AL Says:

    I agree with Teach, this laid things out pretty simply and in detail. Jeremiah is just ticked off because he thought the “violent” rhetoric was only allowed to the left.

    Considering the glee with which Pelosi, et al. marched through the Tea Party demonstration the day of the HC vote, I would contend that it is not just a “simple” rape but a gang rape. I suggest that Stupak’s move is akin to that 15y.o. who prostituted her 7y.o. sister, within the framework of this metaphor.

    • Jeremiah Says:

      I think you guys are confusing the points I brought up in my post. My problem with this article has nothing to do with “violent rhetoric”. My problem is that a 14 year old could have written an article of at least the same rhetorical and grammatical quality as this one.

      I don’t even really have a problem with the author trying to compare American politics today with “rape”. I don’t agree, but I don’t have a problem with him trying to make the point. What I find distasteful is the bumbling and unfocused way that he tries to go about it, and the illogical conclusions that he draws based on premises of questionable validity.

      As I already stated, most of his “definition” of rape is blatantly untrue. If he’s going to make a comparison to rape, he has to define rape, he can’t just take the word and assign his own value to it.

      He also jumps randomly from one point to the next without any explanation to back up his claims. For instance, he jumps right from “This country is being raped” to “It’s no coincidence that the race for the presidency began with vile behavior against Hillary Clinton — a high-tech wilding of sorts, with her body and sexuality defiled.” Besides the fact that “wilding” is not a word, and that the phrase “with her body and sexually defiled” doesn’t make sense, and that he doesn’t attempt to show how media coverage of Clinton is somehow interchangeable with saying that she was “sexually defiled”, the two paragraphs don’t say the same thing. In the first phrase is is stating that “This country” is being raped, and then he moved immediately to “Hillary Clinton” was raped. Which one is he actually trying to convince us is being raped?

      Let’s move on to the next point that he makes: “Because [Sarah Palin is] a conservative, and an attractive, younger woman, the debasement has progressed at a fever pitch.” Ok, A. he doesn’t attempt to try to back up either his claim that Palin has been debased to a greater extent than Clinton or his claim that the reason for this is the fact that Palin is “conservative, and an attractive, younger woman”, and B. Palin has nothing to do with either Hillary Clinton being raped or America being raped.

      The we have the later statement he makes: “Can someone explain to me how the Democrats’ complicity is any different from what happened a few months ago at Richmond High School? There, a gang of boys raped and beat a girl as a crowd not only snickered, but filmed the assault.” It is not “anyone’s” job to explain to the author how the Democrats’ complicity is different from the Richmond High School incident. The author is the one making the claim that the two are analogous, he needs to back it up. Saying that the Democrats, a good one third of the population of the US, are morally analogous to high school gang rapists is a pretty darn bold claim. Once again, I have nothing wrong with bold claims, but the onus is on him to back up his claim, not on the readers to disprove it.

      I could pick the whole article apart for you but I really don’t think that will help anyone. My point is that you’re completely mis-attributing my annoyance. I’m not “threatened” by the article because it is “edgy” or has “violent rhetoric”, I’m annoyed at the article because its prose is sloppy, its grammar is terrible, and its logical progression is nonexistent.


      • Just minutia, but important, nonetheless: Robin is a she, not a he.

        Cheers

        • Jeremiah Says:

          I knew that guess was going to get me in trouble. All due apologies to the author, I didn’t mean any implications based on error regarding her gender.

      • PB-in-AL Says:

        “I’m not “threatened” by the article because it is “edgy” or has “violent rhetoric”, I’m annoyed at the article because its prose is sloppy, its grammar is terrible, and its logical progression is nonexistent.”

        Based on your first response, this conclusion is logically sloppy, and does not follow a logical progression. Your first post makes no mention of flow of prose, grammar, or anything else of the like. You immediately throw out a comment, also unrelated to anything, about Catholic priests, which you seem to harp on about.

        Your paragraph speaking of Sarah Palin is just more moral equivalence misdirection. “Yeah, I can. One case involved a political battle…the other case …a bunch of high schoolers…” You missed her point totally. She was commenting on the verbal sexual violence that was directed at Palin by many in the media and that was passed on by the media as acceptible “political commentary”. Such as the comment that Palin should be gang raped by a bunch of black guys (or whatever the specific wording was).

        The bottom line is that the person who wrote this is a psycotherapist. Who, presumably as I don’t know her personally, knows the clinical results and motivations that often accompany the criminal act of rape. Thus she is using a metaphorical comparison, a concept you have repeatedly had a problem grasping on this forum. Her point is that the “rape” committed is a political and social act, not physical, thus the metaphor.

        You end with: “…in an attempt to pile as many unrelated negative connotative terms on top of Obama”. No she is just illustrating what over half of the population, according to Rasmussen and others, feel is being done to us, against our will. Granted the illustration is graphic and distasteful, but so is what is being foisted off on us as governance.

        One point, in closing, that you haven’t made that I’ll throw out there as a freebie. Obama and the democrats were duly elected by the people of this country; we’re stuck with them to some degree. However, they are still to be our representatives. When it’s obvious, by the recent polling, that most people don’t like the direction that they’re taking or the methods that they’re using, they have ceased to be “representative” and have begun stepping toward tyranny.

        • Leatherneck Says:

          Slam that Troll!

        • Jeremiah Says:

          My first post focused on the lack of logical flow and valid assertions or premises, as I reasserted in my second post when I stated “What I find distasteful is the bumbling and unfocused way that [she] tries to go about it, and the illogical conclusions that [she] draws based on premises of questionable validity.” Because I felt that the nature of my distaste was taken in the wrong context, I expanded my explanation and examples. My comment on the Catholic priests was meant to expose the randomness of the author’s insertion regarding the black panthers.

          Once again, I understand where the author is trying to go with her article in regards to Sarah Palin being “raped” (though I do not agree). What I wanted to point out was that the author simply put out the assertion that Sarah Palin’s press coverage, no examples of which she cited or called attention to, was the equivalent of rape without offering any support or adequate explanation on how she drew her conclusion.

          Let me respond to your closing point too, since you brought it up. According to a survey of major polling companies, Obama’s approval rating is anywhere between 44% and 54%. Even if I accept your qualification of tyrannical as having a low approval rating, you can hardly argue that even 44% would approach that extreme. In addition, if you look at historic Gallup Poll Data, every single president since Roosevelt (first president for whom approval rating was taken) has had approval ratings that have dropped far below Obama’s 44%, including GW Bush at 25%, HW Bush at 29%, Carter at 28%, Nixon at 24%, and Truman at 22%. By your logic, then, every single president since at least Roosevelt has been tyrannical. I think you might be confusing that definition.

          • PB-in-AL Says:

            In reverse paragraph order:

            I wasn’t referring just to the president. I was referring to him, Reid, Pelosi, etc.; who are completely discounting the people who disagree with them. The point I was making was that the polls show that the general populace of the USA is becoming more opposed to the practice and methods that these people are using to push their agendas. Constituents have been called names by their representatives, never acceptable. Representatives (any congress critter) have been ducking constituents, have been controlling “townhall” meetings to suppress opposition. I’m not going to cite specific examples, Dr Bulldog has plenty on this forum.

            To address your comment on Palin, she assumed that everyone is well aware of the examples of sexual vilification that were directed at Palin. I gave one example, but they weren’t hard to find, again look at this forum’s archives, or Gateway Pundit, or… You’re just using that as an excuse.

            You state that your first post was addressing “valid assertions”, but you don’t. You state that you didn’t bring the priest issue in till the 2nd post, nope 1st. Bottom line is you’re just bloviating.

          • Jeremiah Says:

            The whole body of my first post was to address the “lack of…valid assertions” in the article. I don’t see how you could possibly read it in a different way. I also never stated that I first used my Catholic priest example in my second post…as a matter of fact I don’t think I even used it at all as an example in the second post besides in reference to it’s use in the first post.

            I think I already spoke to everything else, although I’m sorry if you don’t like the tone of my posts (bloviating? if you say so…).


Leave a comment