Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    I was prompted to enter this note by the way, because of a strong
    personal distaste for being told that unless I buy the 'whole'
    package, as the definer elucidates it, that I'm not 'x' or 'y' or
    'z'. �I've run into this with people who varied from Christian to
    Ecologists to Feminists, and I get very tired of people who fell
    that have the right to define what is okay for me to think, feel,
    do, what ever. I have no intention of subjugating my personal
    integrity to any 'ism'. So this particular issue is a strong
    'hot' button for me. This is especially true, since I identify
    a lot with Wallen, as being a liberal, and ecologist, and a feminist.
    But I resist and resent 'mind control' from those who are on
    'my side' of the issues, as much and as strongly as I do from
    those on the other side.
    
    Bonnie

Seasons Greetings from Baltimore,

Rush Linbaugh had a wonderful name for this type of tyrany from the left and 
as hard as I try I can't remember what that name is. Here in Baltimore 
they have a good example of the tyrany of the left or I would think of a 
good principle gone nuts. They are looking for a new Superintentdent of
Schools for Baltimore and it has been alleged that no white applicants 
need apply. Though that idea is as wrong as 30 years ago when only
white applicants needed apply for certian jobs I can handle it because
I believe we as a society need to be nudged into accepting change. 
The irony of this situation is that Baltimore has a marvalous candidate
who is a princpal in one of its High School who has had wonderful 
sucess and is black but his fatal flaw is that he is somewhat conservative
in his policys. Its similar to the Joe Clark problem. The City and the
School Board truly don't care about how well the children of the 
city are taught. 

You know companys go through this kind of goofiness but they usually can't
handle the bad effects of really shortsighted policys. In Baltimore's 
case people move out of the city. 

Fred Mudgett

    Bonnie, 
    
         Paul Simon's words from "The Boxer" says it best...  "Still a
    man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest...."
    It's human nature....we all want everybody to share the same 
    belief/opinions....( sure would make life dull !!! )
    
    Happy Holidays !
    

    Sorry to interrupt this string, but it seems fairly relevant (to a man
    anyway :-) so I'll put it here.
    
    ==============
    Female anthropologists met at the U. of Cal. at Santa Cruz to discuss
    female biology.  The meeting was closed to male researchers, a
    restriction that attracted widespread criticism within the scientific
    community.  One organizer of the conference was quoted in the press as
    saying, "At the end of the first day, we were where we'd be after three
    days of other conferences."  According to the women, male posturing and
    filibustering slow scientific conferences.
    ==============
    
    Reminds me of a =wn= posting awhile back (was it Suzanne Conlon's?)
    describing one of the early meetings of the womens' suffrage movement,
    where a similar restriction was applied (as I recall, this one on male
    speech, not male attendance).  The men simply couldn't abide it, and
    couldn't "jump out of the system" long enough to realize that their
    anguished and protracted protests could be taken as proof of the
    original need for the restriction.

    BTW my placement of this note here doesn't mean that I think such an 
    action is wrong, only that it has been taken as wrong by others.  As
    we've seen demonstrated here in =wn=, this can lead to problems.  IMHO 
    the action taken at UC-SC was debatable but I support it.  Not for all
    conferences to be sure, but for those whose majorities choose it.  Who
    knows, other conferences might profit from the example set at UC-SC!

    �I find this rather interesting..

     One of the reasons that I started this note, aside from my own
     personal distaste of what I'd call 'thought control', was to provide
     a forum for people who felt they were being treated negatively because
     they weren't 'PC' by the standards of this file or other out side
     'rules'. 

     =wn= has been extensively criticized for not 'allowing non PC thought'
     but when I started a note to seriously discuss an article in a major
     east coast newspaper, which was echoed in the same week by a major
     US news magazine, there have been very few replies.

     Why is this?

     Bonnie

>     One of the reasons that I started this note, aside from my own
>     personal distaste of what I'd call 'thought control', was to provide
>     a forum for people who felt they were being treated negatively because
>     they weren't 'PC' by the standards of this file or other out side
>     'rules'. 

	The trouble is, if you are percieved as PI, you are so busy trying
	to explain things, and give examples, that you don't have much time for
	many of the other topics.

	However, I don't consider this "thought control", the way to get me to 
	reconsider and re-evaluate, is to come up with some good hard facts,
	reason, or logic, or some new aspect that hadn't yet been considered.

	Treating me negatively will only prove to me that I am right, and this 
	is is being used as alast resort.
	So, it has the opposite effect to "thought control".

	This probably comes under the:

	What do you do if someone wants to negotiate?

	I evaluate my position, I understand by base line, I understand what
	I can trade, and I negotiate.

	or 
	
	"what do you do if you're attacked".

	Well, I entrench, I gather re-enforcements, and I attack.

	C'set la vie - it is always interesting.

    	RE: .0  Bonnie

    	These guys are way behind me - I correctly identified the hysteria
    	against the politically correct as being McCarthyism (from the right
    	wingers again, since they invented it) a long time ago.

    	The idea is to make "politically correct" enough of a political
    	bogeyman that no person in his/her right mind would want to own
    	up to being PC.  Then, they can pick and choose who to label PC
    	(as a built-in way to discredit any group they dislike.)  The
    	standard anti-PC claim is that the people in the despised group
    	were brainwashed or emotionally blackmailed into being there
    	(since it is presumed that a person couldn't possible hold the
    	despised political beliefs through actual human thought.)

    	PC started out as a self-deprecating joke.  It never has existed!
    	Most groups that I see are split in a myriad of ways among the
    	complete collection of complex issues facing our society.

    	It amazes me to see people relying on this weak ploy as a way to
    	gain political ground.  Creating political bogeymen never works
    	for long though.  People eventually wise up to it.

    Suzanne,
    
    I've seen this sort of thought control in action, on the left as
    well as the right and I dislike it on either side.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s. nice to see you in the file again!

    	RE: .9  Bonnie
    
    	"Thought control" itself is a myth, though.  While it's sometimes
    	possible to control what people feel safe saying in public, no
    	group can control what people think!  
    
    	It's a scare tactic, nothing more - people make up their own minds
    	about politics (unless they're locked up in some kind of cult and
    	subjected to mind control techniques 24 hours a day.)
    
    	(P.S. Thanks, but I haven't been away from the file.  I've just
    	been doing my periodic stint as read-only for awhile.)

    
    	Someone may have an influence about how a person feels about their
    	thoughts (or about themselves, eg low self-esteem) - but no one can
    	control what people think.  At some point, individuals make decisions
    	about their opinions, and no other person has real control over what
    	an individual decides for him/herself about any given issue.
    

    Suzanne, I agree with Eric.  I'm put in mind of Himmler's Big Lie
    dictum, advertising, and political rhetoric particularly.  It seems to
    me that if someone doesn't have access to real information, or access
    to the intellectual or emotional tools to use the information...her or
    his thoughts are indeed being controlled by the system that denies such
    access.

    	If a system uses dishonesty to convince people to hold certain
    	political positions, this isn't thought control.  The people
    	still make decisions, albeit with faulty information.
    
    	Please describe for me how any group (left or right) can control
    	how individuals process information that offers a variety of
    	political choices in our culture (without using cult-level mind
    	control techniques.)
    
    	I don't believe it can be done - especially on a large scale.

> Please describe for me how any group (left or right) can control
> how individuals process information that offers a variety of
> political choices in our culture (without using cult-level mind
> control techniques.)
    
> I don't believe it can be done - especially on a large scale.

By 1) controlling what information you have access to 2) slanting that
information you do have access to and 3) lying - giving you deliberate
falsehoods.

For example - you apparently believe that we have a variety of political choices
in our culture - I claim we have been brainwashed into believing this. We
cannot, for example, practically choose communism. This country has been
mind controlled into equating Communism with totalitarianism with evil. QED.
In the Soviet Union for many years you, for practical purposes, could not
believe that the Soviet Army had taken out the cream of the Polish army into
the woods and cold-bloodedly murdered them. The information DID NOT EXIST that
would have let you known that.

Mind control doesn't have to be "cult level", our culture has raised "mind
control" to a fine art - it's called "advertising". Advertising's whole purpose
is to influence the way you think. THAT'S ITS REASON FOR BEING. You can argue
that it's not very effective - but I disagree. If it didn't work I don't think
hard headed corporate executives would spend so much money on it. It's degree
of success is measurable - and large.

	-- Charles-the-sometime-anarchist

    	When I was 11 years old, all I ever heard was how terrible communism
    	is (and about the "domino" theory that made it imperative that we
    	not allow communism to spread.)  I had zero exposure to what children
    	in the Soviet Union were taught about it.
    
    	Even so, at 11 years old, I remember realizing (on my own) that it
    	would make no sense for children in the USSR to be taught that
    	communism was terrible.  They were probably being taught that our
    	system was as bad as we viewed communism.  So it occurred to me that
    	the relative "badness" of either system could depend on one's
    	perspective.  However, I also knew that we liked our system quite
    	a bit and would not be happy to lose it, so it made sense to want
    	to prevent the spread of communism from putting our system in any
    	danger.
    
    	If an 11 year old can see through political rhetoric (without any
    	assistance whatsoever,) I don't see how either the left or the
    	right has a prayer of controlling thought in our present information
    	age.
    
    	They spend money on trying to *convince* people to think in certain
    	ways, but I must reiterate that it isn't thought control if people
    	have choices about it (after being exposed to the rhetoric, etc.)
    	If a lot of people *choose* to think a certain way, it isn't thought
    	control.  It's effective lobbying of public opinion.
    
    	No one can control the individual decisions that each of us makes
    	about our political views, though.

    	No one can control the individual decisions that each of us makes
    	about our political views, though.

I disagree. My decisions have been constrained by the U.S. two party system. If
I want my vote to make a difference I have to choose between two
indistiguishable alternatives - and my vote then doesn't make a difference. My
thoughts in this case haven't been controlled (they are unprintable) but my
decisions have effectively been.

But that's not relevant. If you believe the argument that advertising is mind
control, you should pay attention to the way that modern political campaigns are
run. The candidate is referred to as "the product" and the campaign is almost
purely an advertising campaign. Thought control at its most blatant. Issues are
no longer discussed - the campaign is image, sound bites, and spin control.

	-- Charles

    	Decisions in terms of votes are constrained by the available choices
    	on the ballot, but one can still make personal choices about our
    	political views (eg, our thoughts.)
    
    	As for advertising being mind control, I don't buy that advertising
    	influence is mind control.  People still make choices from the
    	available options.  
    
    	Subliminal advertising came close to mind control, but it's illegal
    	(as far as I know.)
    
    	We still have the capacity to make choices.  As a result, someone
    	like Jesse Helms could spend 100 Billion dollars on advertising
    	(employing every one of my favorite public figures in a campaign
    	to convince me of his views) - and he could even give me a million
    	dollars for my own personal use - but he'd never convince me to
    	share his political views.
    
    	I have a choice about it, even if the ballot doesn't give me the
    	chance to express my preference.

    
    i agree with suzanne
    

    RE: Suzanne
    
                  With our form of government and society I would agree
    with you.....HOWEVER.....give me a small child and let me control the
    infomation (all of it truth) that he/she gets and I can control his *basic*
     thought processes.  
      
    
    Dave

    I agree with Charles in this discussion.  I, also, feel constricted by
    the 2 party system in the US.  I'd prefer a Socialist party to vote
    for.  Nobody ever gave me the option of deciding if I'd like the views
    of a US Communist party, for that matter.  I, also, agree that US
    school children are badly brainwashed.  The teachers never told us in
    school about the reforms fought for by the Communist party in the US, 
    that we all benefit from today.  Afterall, our system of government, in
    the US, has never worked for *everybody.*  If it did, we'd have no
    homeless.
    
    The above is all in my opinion of course.
    
    Lorna
    

    	Well, I wouldn't bet on it, though.  When I came to the conclusion
    	about the relative "badness" of different systems (as I mentioned
    	earlier,) I did it without any additional information whatsoever.
    	
    	My son and I used to watch "The World at War" when he was 5 years
    	old (told from the Allies perspective, of course) - and he had a
    	profound sense of world politics and 20th century history before
    	the first grade.  Although he'd only been alive for 5 short years,
    	he could tell you the sequence of events that had happened up to
    	then (including things that happened before *I* was born, as well
    	as before he was born.)
    
    	It's hard for me to believe that human thought control is possible
    	to accomplish outside of a cult environment.

    A thought on mind control...
    
    Outside forces can obviously control *expression* of thoughts.  That
    is, if I tell you I will kill you if you say x, and I will let you live
    if you say not-x, then I am controlling the expression of your
    thoughts.
    
    It is furthermore known in psychology that if you say/do one thing, but
    think/feel another, it creates "cognitive dissonance", and
    uncomfortable state that your mind will try to resolve.  If you believe
    x, but say (and act as if you believe) not-x, you will experience
    cognitive dissonance.  One of the ways for your mind to resolve this is
    to start to believe x.  It might not even be apparant to your concious
    mind that that is what is happening - you might think you have a
    million good, rational reasons for believing x...but the real reason
    might be cognitive dissonance.
    
    I think this is subtle, and hard to recognize in the small scale, but I
    believe it's happening, and that you can see it on a macroscopic scale.
    
    Also, did you read "1984"?  Remember the scene at the end where the
    fellow acting for Big Brother controls the protagonists thoughts?  He
    holds up some number of fingers, and asks the prot. how many he is
    holding up.  The prot. says "three" and get's zapped, and told that no,
    it's four.  So the next time he holds up three fingers, the prot. says
    "four" and get's told no, it's three.  This goes on until the prot.'s
    mind is *unable* to form *any* opinion about the number of fingers held
    up, until he is told.  At this point, BB is happy.  His thoughts are
    now totally controlled by BB.
    
    This is obviously a very extreme example, but I believe the same
    principle can work at a more subtle level.  I believe outside forces
    *do* control our thoughts in this, and other, ways.
    
    D!

    	As mentioned earlier, I do believe in cult-level mind control
    	techniques (which would include the extremes described in "1984.")

    	I disagree that cognitive dissonance has enough influence to result
    	in mind control to as much of a degree as you seem to suggest.

    	Consider the example of a person locked into a hated job with a
    	boss the person despises.  The person may well be forced to greet
    	the job (and the boss) with a false positive attitude in order to
    	keep the needed job.  Cognitive dissonance would exist, but would
    	it be enough to make the person start liking both the job & the boss?

    	It might work in some people's cases, but judging by the number of
    	people who spend entire working lives hating their jobs - I think 
    	many people can choose *not* to resolve the differences between what 
    	they must say versus what they really think.

>    	It's hard for me to believe that human thought control is possible
>    	to accomplish outside of a cult environment.

That's because it works... :-)

[Thass a *joke* son.]

	-- Charles

    
    	RE: .26  Charles
    
    	Wise guy.  :-)  :-)
    

    
    
    
    I just have one question to ask of those saying that our minds can't be
    controlled.....
    
    
    How would you know if it was?  I mean, if you think about it, the best
    mind control would be to not give the person being controlled any
    inclination that they were being controlled.
    
    How can you safely say that it doesn't exist?
    
    
    kath

    Kath, that's subtle...and I agree with every word.
    
    
    Suzanne, now I find that you and I are (sorta) in agreement:  we define
    "mind control" differently, and I agree that as you define it it's not
    

    
    
    > Kath, that's subtle...and I agree with every word.
    
    Well, it's certainly something to think about.  If our minds were being
    controlled in some way, how would we recognize it?  It might even be
    controlled in such a way that we are led to believe that we are making
    our own informed decisions.  
    
    I fully believe in what Suzanne is saying, but given my question as a
    possibility......we can truly believe the way she's stated, yet still
    be controlled and never know it.
    
    
    Whew........I'm getting a headache thinking about it.
    
    kath

    ...took a philosophy course once.  spent the whole semester watching
    the prof wiggle his finger and ask "did *I* decide to wiggle my finger
    this way, or has it been predetermined from the beginning of time
    that I will do so?"
    
    I slept a lot in this class

    	RE: .30  Kath
    
    	Interesting idea - how would we know?
    
    	Well, I think it would be difficult to find the resources to
    	control over 200 million people (in this country alone) - and
    	the controlling would have to be on a pretty individual basis
    	considering the huge variety of opinions evident in our culture.
    
    	When it comes to complete sets of ideas, individuals' viewpoints
    	are almost as distinctive as fingerprints (although it may not
    	seem that way at times.)
    
    	As a Philosophy major in college, I went through a lot of different
    	thoughts about the nature of reality - but, luckily, I settled on
    	Symbolic Logic by my senior year - so I feel secure that my beliefs 
    	have a solid foundation.  When I do change my mind about something,
    	I can see precisely how (and why) it happened.
    
    	The thought you brought up does have interesting possibilities, tho.
    	(Luckily, I have Tylenol handy.)  :-)

Ok - let's do a small reality test on this idea that mind control is actually
possible and completely effective.

IF so, then how hard is it to do? If it's hard, how does one learn the
technique? If it requires training, and is hard, and requires many 
people to implement, then I would expect we'd see semi-competent dropouts
around - hmm, maybe that's the advertizing industry? Or perhaps it SO effective
that the dropouts are mind controlled into forgetting what they know? Or maybe
they're just killed and we are controlled to not notice. If the technique is
easy and effective then there could be a small cabal of controllers that pass
the technique down only to the initiated. If the group required was large, I
would expect that there would arise conflicts, and that these conflicts would
be noticable. Perhaps the current Iraq conflict is actually an argument in
the ruling cabal? If the technique is too easy then I would expect spontaneous
independent discovery of the techniques. Further I would expect that any
technique could not be 100% effective, and so there will be a minority that
was uncontrolled. It seems to me that they would be in a position to expose
any pervasive control.

So the bottom line is, I don't think we have anything fnord to worry about.

	-- Charles

P.S. If you're interested in this kind of stuff, and don't take it too
seriously - check out Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminati" trilogy. If you're
interested in this kind of stuff and take it seriously, I recommend your local
John Birch Society or any other "conspiracy theory" group.

        I'm reminded of the movie "They Live".
        
        Dan

    Re: .33
    
    I agree with you, Charles, that any mind control technique could not be
    100% effective.  The way I look at it you can't control someone's
    thoughts with a guaranteed result.  It depends on the person and the
    technique used.  So called mind control techniques are used to increase
    the likelihood of the desired result, but they can't "control" it in
    a deterministic sense.  I guess it depends what you mean by "control".
    
    Mary

    Charles, I *do* believe mind-control is happening, but I don't believe
    it's a conspiracy, and I don't believe the "ruling cabal" or the
    Illuminati type of stuff.
    
    I believe mind-control is happening on a daily basis.  Parents control
    the thoughts of their children.  Advertisers control the thoughts of TV
    viewers.  The politicos control the thoughts of the populace.
    
    I don't believe it is 100% effective...I don't believe there is anyone
    out there deciding "I want Diana Carroll to believe that there are
    advertisers controlling her thoughts" or "I want Charles Haynes to
    think conspiracy theories are silly" or "I want John Doe to teach his
    children the ABC's." I think thought control is happening at a more
    subtle, higher-level way.  
    
    I believe *attempted* thought-control is a natural artifact of
    civilization - but the larger and more dense the society, and the more
    effective the techniques of communication, the more effective the
    thought-control will be.  I believe a certain amount of comformity is
    necessary for a society to survive, and therefore the society will try
    to impose it's collective ideas on it's constituents.  At a very basic
    level, this happens by people shunning their neighbors who don't follow
    the status quo, by making laws against certain extrememly
    non-comformist activities, by teaching our children *very* thoroughly
    against taking certain paths.  
    
    Yes, some people can get by this.  It isn't 100% effective.  But at
    what cost?  And how many original thinkers are there for every dozen
    "sheep" in our society?
    
    Take a child, and expose him to the concept that "x is good" 5 times a
    day, every day, from the moment until he is born until the moment he
    dies.  use whatever imagery is most effective for his age: when he is
    2, associate x with food.  When he is 4, associate x with  parental
    love.  When he is 6, associate x with friends.  When he is 13,
    associate x with physical beauty.  When he is 20, associate x with
    love.  When he is 30, associate x with money.  etc.  Do you not think
    that he will believe that x is good?  Not only will he believe it, he
    will *feel* it to the very core of his being, and the suggestion
    otherwise will be repugnant to him.  Unlearning that mental
    conditioning isn't *impossible* but difficult, and unlikely that he
    would even see a need.  And he will raise his kid with the same imagery
    that was given him.
    
    Another aspect of mind control is language.  You can't *think* about
    something you don't have the words for.  How many people invent words
    to explain concepts they feel vaguely but can't conceptualize until
    they have a word?  Some, yes, but not many.  Our language enforces
    certain thoughts and especially certain thought-processes on all of us. 
    It's another example of the non-conspiratorial nature of society
    imposing thought-control on it's members.
    
    D!

Completely agree with D! -- and would add that "mind control" is easier
in the United States because of how isolated we are from the rest of the
world.

How many of you read a foreign language; and how many of you that can actually
read a foreign-language newspaper regularly?

For example, what do you know about European Social Democracy?  The
"mind control" people have taught you about high taxes and oppressive
bureacracy.  (Mention Sweden to someone: all they know is Socialism,
high taxes, and suicide -- why is that?)

Every time you read "the Free World" as a description for "our side,"
you are being exposed to propaganda/mind-control.  Whether you agree
with it or not.

During the last winter olympics, one of the NPR reporters interviewed
a Yugoslavian woman:

"How can you live in a country that doesn't permit free speech?"

"You can *you* live in a country where you can't walk in the park at night?"

Which of these people were "mind-controlled?"

Martin.

    	RE: .36  D!

    	Well, I disagree that "mind control" is a term that best reflects
    	what you described.  I would call it "lobbying for public opinion."
    	
    	In our culture, we have the capacity to make personal decisions
    	about our viewpoints, so we are constantly exposed to material
    	designed to sway our opinions one way or another (or several ways.)
    	Ultimately, we still make our own decisions about what we think
    	- the persuasiveness of the various arguments have an affect on us,
    	but sometimes these can be ignored in favor of "blind faith" that
    	has been fostered for a particular belief (which overrides every-
    	thing else.)

    	As an example, my 20 year old son has been taught from pre-school
    	on up that he shouldn't start smoking.  I can remember hearing him
    	tell my Mother (when he was 3 years old!!) that smoking is bad for
    	the health.  He was a bit confused about the details - he told her
    	that her heart would turn black.  :-)  But he knew that it was a
    	health hazard of some sort, at least.

    	Today, nearly all his friends (his own age) smoke.  He doesn't do
    	it himself, but he comes home with clothes that smell like smoke
    	every time he goes out with friends (and he tells me that almost
    	every one of them smokes.)

    	So - while *they* were able to ignore the message about not smoking,
    	my son is able to ignore the peer pressure involved with refraining
    	from smoking while most of his friends do it.  So whose mind has been
    	controlled (and which control would be more compelling to a young
    	person?)

    	People make decisions about these things.  As a parent, you can lobby
    	certain beliefs and attitudes with your child, but there is ZERO
    	guarantee that the child will accept them.  The final decision will
    	be his/hers.

    	Is it wrong to lobby individuals with certain beliefs or opinions?
    	It's a natural function of the fact that humans make their own final
    	decisions (at some level) about what we think.

    	Even the strictest Communist countries have dissidents who risk
    	prison and death for their beliefs.  Look at how many people came
    	forward to demonstrate during the early days of Tianenmen Square.
    	The individuals who survived this attempt at revolution can't say
    	what they think about it now, but the government can't stop them
    	from having beliefs contrary to the political/social ideology
    	required by law there.

    	"Mind control" is too strong a term for lobbying public opinion,
    	especially when it is used to convince one side of a debate that
    	they owe their beliefs to brainwashing (which is the tactic being
    	used by the right to attempt to sway people away from the left
    	these days.)  

        re .38,
        
>>    	"Mind control" is too strong a term for lobbying public opinion,
>>    	especially when it is used to convince one side of a debate that
>>    	they owe their beliefs to brainwashing (which is the tactic being
>>    	used by the right to attempt to sway people away from the left
>>    	these days.)  
        
        No, no, it's used by the left to sway people away from
        the right.
        
        Dan

    	RE: .39  Dan D'Eramo
    
    	> No, no, it's used by the left to sway people away from
        > the right.
    
    	It's used most often these days to discredit the left (especially
    	those accused of being "politically correct.")
    
    	Notice who is identified as PC in the basenote - it mentions
    	race, feminism, ecology and beliefs about Third World oppression.
    	
    	Talk about a dead giveaway to whose interests are attempting to
    	be served.

        re "it's used" ... I wish all sides would do more to
        encourage independent thought.  Or should I call it
        "individual thought"?  Maybe Mrs. Bush can slip a shout
        of "Challenge Authority!" into one of her literacy
        commercials.
        
        I'm glad you have resumed writing here again Suzanne. 
        Welcome back!
        
        Dan

    Still disagree, Suzanne.
    
    I think there is a difference between mind-control as I describe it and
    "lobbying" as you call it, and I think both occur.
    
    Your son (and his friends) got two messages: one that smoking was bad
    (from Dr. Koop, you [presumably], the American Lung assoc. etc) and one
    that smoking was good (from ads in magazines, etc.)  Merits of both
    were presented.  I agree that this is not an example of mind-control
    but of persuasion.
    
    mind-control would be achieved through being present with *one*
    message, and the concept that it can't even be *questioned*, that it is
    a *logical* truth and can be no other way.  The problem with talking
    about this sort of mind-control is that it is awfully hard to point to
    particular things and say "We have been 'forced' to think this" because
    inherent in the nature of this sort of mind-control is that you don't
    question the premise, and it doesn't even occur to you (if the control
    is effective) that it could be any other way.  
    
    So I can't point to *currently* very effective controls.  The best I 
    do is point to past ones...I think racism and sexism are both examples
    of cultural mind-control and that is why they are so hard to overcome,
    even now that we recognize them for what they are.  Anti-communism. 
    Pro-capitalism.  The importance of money.  The definition of beauty. 
    (Now that I think about it, this last one is a good example of how
    effective it can be...our culture dictates who is considered beautiful. 
    And even after people realize that they have been manipulated into
    thinking certain things are beautiful, the truth is, they still think
    that!  I recognize that it is my society that has made me find tall,
    long-legged slim blonde women attractive, but even so, I still find them
    attractive.)
    
    There were studies that I can't quote cause i forgot :-) that we
    discussed in one of my psych classes about how people from different
    cultures approached problem-solving differently.  It wasn't genetic, it
    was cultural - people raised in different cultures, and with different
    languages, approached things differently.
    
    I think a good analogy would be learning to speak.  It has been shown
    that infants can utter and discriminate between a wide range of vocal
    noises - as the infant devlops, learning one or two languages, their
    ability to vocalize and to discriminate between noises not made in
    their language goes away, never to be regained.  To many Chinese, an
    "l" and an "r" *sound* alike.  Their culture has affected their
    verbal-processing mechanism.
    
    D! who isn't sure she is making any sense but knows what she means :-)

    	RE: .42  D!

    	What you seem to be describing as "mind-control" strikes me as
    	fad, fashion, and cultural trend-setting.

    	As an example, it's extremely trendy right now to call people
    	"politically correct" - it's a fad to use this as a way to
    	discredit other groups with the implication that PC people 
    	refrain from attaining their ideology via human thought (and,
    	worse, to claim outright that they're involved in some sinister
    	conspiracy to persecute those with opposing views.)

    	The people who overuse accusations like "politically correct" -
    	are they the victims of mind-control, or are they merely susceptible
    	to fashion?  In another 10 years, some other popular, trendy way
    	to put down rights groups will be available (as people begin to wise
    	up to the myths about the politically correct.)  Another fad will
    	take its place.

    	As insidious as it is, I don't agree that it amounts to mind-control.
    	It's more a matter of the fact that some people in our culture derive
    	pleasure or gratification from being perceived as "in" or "cool."
    	When it comes to fashion involved with sexual attraction, there are
    	norms but variations do exist.  If they didn't, only people with one
    	certain hair color, height or body type would be getting married and
    	reproducing (and we KNOW this isn't the case.)

    	If mind control through the repetition of ONE MESSAGE were possible,
    	a million people in Tianenmen Square (in the early days of the
    	demonstration) would have wondered what the heck the fuss was about
    	when they *knew* their present system was so wonderful as is. Right?
    
    	It's all a matter of varying degrees of lobbying for public opinion
     	(eg, influencing current fad and fashion.)  Human beings still have
    	the option of making other choices.

    It seems to ME that fad, fashion, and cultural-trend setting are
    precisely the faces that "mind control" have in our culture - that's
    how it's accomplished. It's also known as "peer-pressure" and "going
    along with th crowd". You can call it what you like, but I claim it
    quacks like a duck.
    
    	-- Charles
    	(noting from the Boston Marriott Copley Plaza)
    	(anyone want to come in to town tomorrow night and BS?)

    	RE: .44  Charles
    
    	Ok, I will agree that fad, fashion and cultural trend-setting have
    	been used over the centuries to oppress groups (by making it a
    	norm to regard certain groups as inferior, etc.) - but there were
    	always individuals who knew better and who had the power to change
    	the fashion (albeit slowly) by promulgating another message.  This
    	is how social change occurs.
    
    	If individuals can come up with completely new ideas in the face
    	of overwhelming opinion to the contrary - and if these individuals
    	can engineer movements to expose others to their new ideas (and
    	we *know* this has happened) - then human minds can be temporarily
    	influenced but *not* effectively controlled.
    
    	Humans do have the resouces to see beyond fad, fashion and trends.

Let's see, what are some of *our* PC beliefs?

-- Americans have freedom of speech.

-- One individual working alone can change the world.

-- Democracy is the best political system.

-- The "free market" is the best economic system.

-------------------------

The central figures of the American popular myths are based on the
John Wayne -> Clint Eastwood (Dirty Harry) -> Sylvester Stallone (Rambo)
lone cowboy who sets off on his own, breaks the rules, and "gets the
job done."  Female equivalents are fewer in number, but might well
include the Jane Fonda character in "They Shoot Horses, Don't They."
and the Sigorney Weaver character in "Aliens."

Indeed, the fact that female characters do not generally share in
this aspect of the American myth is also part of our culture's PC-ness.

What is clear, however, is that we *do not* build our myths around
cooperation but of dominance.  I.e., compare the different "myths" shown
by Dirty Harry and the Fonda/Hopper/Nicholson trio in Easy Rider; two films
from roughly the same time period.

Martin.

It seems to me much of what is being called "mind control" in the past few notes
would have been called enculturization in anthropology 101. It's a grand human
tradition to pass on our beliefs to the next generation. As such it is not "bad"
per se. It's the way human society tries to perpetuate itself. liesl

Here's another example of "PC" "mind-control" that we've seen a lot of
in the past few weeks and will see much more of in the future:

From the Boston Globe, Monday, Jan 14:

	"... somehow President Saddam Hussein of Iraq will come to
	his senses and withdraw from Kuwait before the United Nations
	deadline of midnight tomorrow."

Would you believe that Iraq newspapers are writing "... somehow
President Bush will come to his senses ..."

Martin.

    Well, I dunno. "I'm right/you're wrong" doesn't seem so much
    "mind control" to me as Down-home, Garden-variety Ego.
    
    You may disagree with that.
    
    
    
    But *I*, of course, am correct.
    
    
    
    :-)
    

    	While I agree that our culture has a great many persuaders, liars
    	and manipulators - I don't agree that this can be defined as mind
    	control (except in a loose definition of the term.)

    	Obviously, if you define the term differently than I do, we will
    	not agree on the behaviors/situations that can be regarded as
    	mind control.

    	In the case of peer pressure, if "nearly all people" are affected 
    	by it, then there is no clear "controller" versus "controlled" persons.
    	Many people have voluntarily submitted themselves for the approval
    	of others (in exchange for those others submitting themselves to
    	others' approval in the same way.)  It isn't "control" if people
    	have volunteered themselves for mutual peer pressure relationships.

    	As for dresses, men who are determined to wear them do so.  Men
    	do not lack the mental capacity to make the choice (as individuals)
    	about whether or not to wear dresses.  In light of the fact that
    	it isn't socially acceptable, most CHOOSE not to wear them.  It's
    	still a choice (for reasons that can be listed.)  

    	In Communist countries with only ONE MESSAGE about which system is
    	good, the general population can still become dissatisfied with it.
    	Hearing one message does not prevent individuals from thinking to
    	themselves, "I'm unhappy.  This government stinks.  I want out of
    	here."  They may be effectively prevented from expressing their
    	unhappiness, criticizing the government and/or "getting out" -
    	but the government can NOT stop them from thinking these thoughts
    	(as demonstrated by the demonstrations in Tianenmen Square as well
    	as the mass exodus of people from East Germany when the first clear
    	exit opened up to them - before the wall came down.)

    	As for religion, people are usually raised in a particular religion
    	and many tend to follow the family tradition into adulthood.  It's
    	often part of their family life.  While it's entirely possible for
    	each individual to make a religious choice contrary to their family
    	religion (my siblings and I made other choices, in fact) - many
    	people do make the *choice* to stay with their family's religion,
    	for one reason or another, although humans have the capacity to
    	reject the family religion as another clear choice.

    	By the way, how many men would be willing to model panty-hose on
    	television, does anyone suppose?  Very few, I'd bet.
    
    	Yet, Joe Namath modeled panty-hose on television for a great deal
    	of money - and by all appearances, he thought the whole episode
    	was hilarious.
    
    	Men have the capacity to make such a decision - obviously, Joe
    	was in a position to make some bucks from it without hurting his
    	image (or his potential earnings as a celebrity.)
    
    	Mind control?  No way.  He knew exactly what he was doing.

Are we confusing mind control with action control? There are many ways someone
could force me to act a certain way, like saying I'll be arrested if I don't.
But they can't really control what I think about it. My going along may not mean
that I agree though it does show that I'm controlled. But if I don't agree or
like it my *mind* was not controlled, just my actions. liesl 

    	Well, it's been stated here several times that mind control does
    	exist in some religious cults.  No one that I can recall has stated
    	that the human mind is incapable of ever being controlled under any
    	possible circumstances.  Countries having one dominant religion with
    	close ties to the political policies and interests of the society
    	come closer to the environment of religious cults than our society
    	does.  Thus, it's possible that some degree of mind control (or at
    	least profound cultural influence) comes into play.
    
    	In the absence of this environment, I disagree that strong religious
    	beliefs are the result of mind control.  If this were the case, then
    	anyone could be turned into a religious zealot (for a randomly chosen
    	religion) almost at will.  I disagree that most people are susceptible
    	to this degree of influence outside of a cult environment.
    
    	As for peer pressure, it's a mutual relationship.  I disagree that
    	it can be defined (mostly or solely) on the basis of the majority
    	influencing the minority.  Look at the effect teenagers have on
    	each other.  Most teenagers are strongly influenced by what their
    	friends think.  It isn't a one-sided effect by any means.
    
    	Neither is it real mind control.  As Liesl said, these examples are
    	things that control actions, not thoughts.

With Suzanne and liesl - if you say mind control then IMO you mean thought
control not behavioral control.  However, edp, if you wish to define mind
control as obvious by outward appearance, that's your priveledge.

Now this is just me, but a few truly interesting (*to me*) thoughts have been
brought up that are getting lost under the definition of mind control.

The most notable - which *I* find fascinating - is whether "PC" is "the 
MCCarthyism of the left" or it's exact opposite - a label used by the right to
silence the left.

*I* find with the latter - in fact, one is looked at as sort of a fascist if
one is PC these days.  Boggles the mind when you think that those are really
diametrically opposed.  What next?  A fascist liberal?

Barb

    RE: .58  Barb

    Agreed - people seem to have different definitions of mind control,
    and we can most definitely agree to disagree on these.

    > The most notable - which *I* find fascinating - is whether "PC" is "the 
    > MCCarthyism of the left" or it's exact opposite - a label used by the 
    > right to silence the left.

    > *I* find with the latter -

    Me, too.  Accusations of "Mccarthyism of the left" is the same old ploy
    used in the original Mccarthyism (by the right who invented it) - it's
    a way of creating political boogeymen with superhuman powers that most
    need to worry about and fight against (while the rest of us deny that we
    have affiliation with such dastardly creatures ourselves.)

    It's a devious attempt to discredit and split the left.  (Notice that
    not *ALL* of the left is referred to as PC.  They tend to single out
    the parts of the left that are the most threatening to the right -
    "race, feminism, ecology" and those who speak of the oppression of the
    Third World, per the basenote.)

    It's a new-style witch hunt, in other words.  They claim to be on a
    witch hunt for those they accuse of being on a witch hunt.  Ironic, eh?

    I don't believe it...-edp and I agree!  Who'da thunk?!?!
    
    Eric, thanks, you stated it better than I was able to.
    
    Suzanne, guess this is a case of difference of opinion.  
    
    (I do understand the difference between thought control and action
    control, and I believe that *thought* control is going on.)
    
    D!

    	Yikes, D! - this is going to confuse the hell out of those who
    	believe in the myth of the strict Party Line here!  :-)  :-)
    
    	"Mind control" seems like too strong a term (to me) to be used to
    	describe the ways that people are influenced in various cultures.
    
    	Ultimately, I regard humans as having choice about what we THINK
    	(even if our actions are being controlled via laws, peer pressure,
    	etc.)
    
    	We can agree to disagree.  

    re: .57
    
    > I disagree that most people are susceptible to this degree of influence
    > outside of a cult environment.
    
    There are some people who are brought up not to think for themselves;
    they are used to being told what to think and they feel insecure when they
    have to think for themselves.  From the examples you cited earlier in
    this string and from the general way you present yourself in notes, you
    seem to be a person who is a strong independent thinker.  This is just
    my opinion, but from reading this string, it strikes me that you may be
    overgeneralizing your own personality and experiences to others.
    
    -Mary
    

    Norman Cholmsky (of MIT) once said in A World of Ideas that
    totalitarian systems do not really care about what you think as long as
    you don't say it or act it out.  Hence, they are essentially
    behaviorists.  Democratic systems can't control what you say or do; 
    therefore, they must worry about what you think.
    
    Now, I think that is a very cynical statement, but it does make one
    think.
    
    Eugene
                    

    	Ok, I'll buy the idea that some people are taught to deliver
    	themselves to cultural/political influences - and others do it
    	as a short cut to the research it takes to establish informed 
    	opinions.  And I do agree that various aspects of the media
    	capitolize on this by presenting news with bias added.
    
    	It still doesn't strike me as "mind control" - it sounds more
    	like apathy.
    
    	If true mind control were possible (outside the realm of a cult
    	environment,) people wouldn't have to be "taught" that they
    	should allow others to influence them.  Many/most people would
    	simply have no choice at all about it - and I have yet to see
    	anything to convince me that such involuntary mind control is
    	possible on a widespread basis in the absence of a cult.

    edp - it wasn't a straw man tha tI set up it was a reply to a
    particular sub-series of notes in here that (not very seriously)
    proposed that if complete and effective mind control existed that we
    wouldn't be able to tell. While that statement is self obviously true,
    I attempted (semi-humorously I thought) to dispell the "real"
    possibility that that was how our world worked. Sorry you missed that
    particular point, but you seem to have sparked a good continuation.
    
    	-- Charles
    
    P.S. I believe that if your actions are controlled your mind will
    follow. (As D! argued...)
    

<   	-- Charles
<    
<    P.S. I believe that if your actions are controlled your mind will
<    follow. (As D! argued...)
    
Hmm, this reminds me of the current rash of self-help books that espouse just
the reverse of this theory. That if you say/think you *can* do something, such
as lose wieght or quit smoking, that you will be able to *do* it. And that
positive self talk in general will improve your life. Sort of a private form
of mind control.

In fact, given the obsession in our society with weight, if mind control could
really work weel, why don't more people lose weight and keep it off? This may
seem a silly comparison to politcal thought but isn't it the same principle?

Eugene, I liked the Chomsky quote, I'd never thought of it that way before.
Maybe "they" wouldn't let me. :*) liesl

    	One of the biggest lessons of my life on the futility of thought
    	control over a human being in my care (whom I felt I should be
    	able to influence for his own good) came when my toddler put away
    	his toys at my insistence ...

    		... but not without giving me a very grumpy sidelong glance
    	punctuated by, "I'm not your friend!!"  :-}  (It was temporary.)

    	Although I've had a lot of wonderful talks with him over the years
    	and I think he's accepted a number of my ideas, I never kid myself
    	about having control over what he thinks.  

    	I've had an influence on him, though, and I hope it's been a good
    	one.  But control?  Nope.

    re .63,
    
    As Maggie pointed out to me, it is Noam Chomsky.
    
    ...
    
    All of us have been conditioned by our surroundings that by the time
    we are adults, our thoughts have largely become reflections of our
    culture.  This is not at all bad, but rather it provides continuity and
    stability to a culture and a society.  That is also why few of us 
    have any original ideas, and those who do become either outcasts or 
    geniuses.
    
    But I guess we all know that "mind control" is something totally
    different, and we all know what it is (all the confusion on the
    definition not withstanding).  I don't think this campus PCism 
    qualifies as "mind control".  It is a minor irritation if it ever
    qualifies as anything.  These guys ain't there yet.  The real (and 
    the dangerous) "mind control" techniques would not even let you aware of 
    its existence.  One example was the Nazi movement in Germany.  The 
    brain wash was so complete that even after the war when Germany was 
    completely devastated, people there, by and large, still voted for the 
    Nazi politicians.  It is also astounding that the mass believed that 
    Jews were inferior when Goettingen, the center of the intellectual 
    activity of the time, were largely made up by scholars of Jewish decent.  
    
    Eugene

    	Well, I still disagree that strong religious beliefs are the result
    	of mind control outside the realm of a cult environment.  People
    	give themselves over willingly to religion and religious leaders
    	(except in cases where religion is tied closely to the political
    	system of the country.)  
    
    	If "most people" are indoctrinated so thoroughly into one religion
    	or another, then I guess most of the people I know are in some kind
    	of minority in this (myself included.)
    
    	As for Reagan, he sure as hell never swayed me - I had a choice
    	about this, too, and I chose to dislike him.  I'm not crazy about
    	his successor either.
    
    	As for peer pressure, we are speaking of two different things here,
    	because I'm referring to a non-antagonistic relationship where
    	people who have things in common (making them "peers") have an
    	influence over each other.  Teenagers are often the most subject
    	to this phenomenon.
    
    	When people think "sexist thoughts" even though they know better
    	(especially when the thoughts amount to discrimination against
    	themselves,) it is often a matter of habit rather than mind control.
    	
    	As for the witch hunt for the people the right claim are on a witch
    	hunt, I find a delicious irony in it that I don't expect everyone
    	else in the world to appreciate.  :-)

>    	Well, I still disagree that strong religious beliefs are the result
>    	of mind control outside the realm of a cult environment.  People
>    	give themselves over willingly to religion and religious leaders
>    	(except in cases where religion is tied closely to the political
>    	system of the country.)  

    I don't agree with this assessment. Statistically, I believe
    you'll find that the majority of people continue in the religion
    of their parents. Yes there are many exceptions, but that's the
    trend I see. Consider the proportion of Catholics in Latin
    countries, Anglicans in England, Hindus in India, etc. This shows
    me a preponderance of influence that doesn't look like "giving
    over willingly".

    Delving deeper in this area is likely to offend someone, so I'll
    quit now...

    
    remember the Inquisition?
    
    D.

    	Families have religious influence over their children (as has been
    	pointed out numerous times.)  Humans have the capacity to reject
    	this influence - but not everyone does (especially if the religion
    	is tied into the politics or ethnic identity of their country.)
    
    	I don't regard all possible human influence as mind control.

Delicious irony, indeed.  Shakespeare could really have enjoyed it:

	Don't remember the play's name, but the character was a man
	playing a woman playing a man.  Boggling.......

On the serious side of the irony, deflection is an exceptionally powerfull
tool.  Going on the attack while seeming to be the "victim" is beyond being
dangerous.....Deserves some spotlights.

Barb

    	Something else about mind control...
    
    	No one has denied that it is possible to control the human mind
    	under certain extreme circumstances.  We know this to be true.
    
    	Just because we know mind control is feasible, why assume that
        almost every case of human influence falls into this extreme 
    	category?  I guess I just don't see the point.
    

    I suppose the real question is whether, on the continuum of
    degrees of influence, there is some definable point where
    "influence" becomes something called "mind control".

    Insofar as "mind control" doesn't appear to be a clearly defined
    process, distinguishing it from other styles and degrees of
    influence really devolves into another exercise in semantics,
    doesn't it?

    	RE: .76  Paul
    
    	Yup.  And a rather useless exercise in semantics at that, since
    	it's been obvious for some days that we've reached the point where
    	it is wiser to simply agree to disagree about it.
    
    	Shouldn't be a problem.  Should it?

George Lakoff, One of Chomsky's collegues, has just distributed a monograph
on the way metaphor influences our thought -- specifically about the Iraq war.
It's far too long to post here and is pretty dense reading.  If you're
interested, feel free to copy bolt::user_5:[minow]metaphor.txt.

Lakoff's main point is that we use metaphor to invest countries,
economic systems, and actions with "human" values and base our
responses, not on reality, but on the methaphor.

To simplify Lakoff's argument, we must "punish" Iraq because it 
"raped" Kuwait.  (At least, this is what our government is saying.)
There is a lot more to Lakoff's argument, and the thesis has wider
applicability.  I read it last night, between bits of tv news that
offered unexpected examples of Lakoff's argument.

Martin.

     >then I guess most of the people I know are in some kind
     >	of minority in this (myself included.)
    
    I am certain this is true.
    
    (You being a self-directed independent-thinking and intelligent woman.)
    
    D!

>    	Families have religious influence over their children (as has been
>    	pointed out numerous times.)  Humans have the capacity to reject
>    	this influence - but not everyone does (especially if the religion
>    	is tied into the politics or ethnic identity of their country.)
 

	The Church of England is definately tied to England, not only does
	it have the country name tied to the Religion, it also has the Queen
	as the defender of the faith, and there are blasphemy laws on the books
	to protect this.

	However, there are many people who reject this faith, even though it was
	their parents faith, it is tied to politics, and is tied to the 
	monarchy, and tied to the country.

	There are many people with individual thought. - Some of these decide to
	follow this faith, and some decide not to, and there are some that 
	"follow the herd". I do not beleive the latter to be in the majority.

	And on to dresses/skirts - the Scots do a good job of bucking "mind 	
	control".

	And on to trousers - the women in many countries have done a good job 
	of bucking the "mind control" here too.

	Heather

    
    I find it curious that even though The Church of England is tied to
    England, is "the official church", religion itself doesn't really seem
    to intrude on the government as it does here in the states.
    
    CQ

    Judging by comments made about the Archbishop of Canterbury, it's
    not clear to me if religion intrudes on the Church of England
    either.
    
    					Ann B.

    See also "Are You Politically Correct?" by John Taylor in "New York"
    magazine, 21 January 1991 issue.
    
    If the "PC'ness" of the left is being bruited about, has anyone seen
    similar analyses of the right, or is it too obvious to warrant
    examination?  Anyone want to take a stab at a list of conservative PC
    tenets?
    
    J

    This is from a column called "Female Trouble", in the Village
    Voice.  Seems to fit perfectly in this note...

    	amy

    	
                                    PC Does It

                                By LynNell Hancock


    	"I am Politically Correct.  If that's not appalling enough to
    the Neo-Conservative Front, I am, even worse, a Politically
    Correct Woman.  A PCW.  Mouthpieces for the front - 'New York
    Magazine', 'Newsweek', and 'The Atlantic Monthly' - tell me I'm 
    part of a dangerous conspiracy to undermine Western Civilization 
    as they know it.  They tell me that things like sensitivity 
    training for gay-bashers are tantamount to Thought Control � la
    '1984'.  They tell me that wanting books by Toni Morrison on a 
    required reading list is insulting to Shakespeare at best, and 
    totalitarian, at worst.  I warn you, I speak the language of the 
    Red Guard, but it seems to me this PC tag has been invented by a 
    group of the powerfully paranoid to keep the poor and disadvantaged 
    out of their faces.

    	"I'm afraid I have some confessions to make.  I came of age in
    the '60s, a decade of enlightenment that John Taylor at 'NY Mag'
    tells me most have rejected.  My politics evolved initially from
    the disturbing experience of growing up in small town America, in
    a Dark Era known as pre-Roe v. Wade.  I've had an underground
    abortion, underpaid jobs, unwanted intercourse.  (We didn't know
    to call it date rape then.)  I see antiwoman images and attitudes
    all around me, which must make me a Gender Feminist encroaching on
    others' Freedom of Speech.  According to the Politically Incorrect
    People (PIPs, I suppose) I'm now one of the new breed of 
    "fundamentalists."  And, because I demand respect for all, I'm
    even (Mom, you better sit down for this) a descendent of the 
    "Hitler Youth!"

    	'"It's fascism of the left," according to Camille Paglia in 'NY
    Mag'.  "These people behave like the Hitler Youth."  For those who
    don't yet grasp what is wrong with people like me, the editors
    have included some useful graphics:  photographs of Young Nazis
    burning books, of China's Red Guard parading dunces through the
    streets.  PIPs point fingers at anyone (students, mostly) who
    challenge racist, homophobic, sexist behavior and language.  They
    grab the most extremist antiracist hollerers (Leonard Jeffries,
    for one), and conveniently assume they speak for anyone who stands
    up for social justice.  People like me are all, in an ironic
    twist, "new McCarthyites."  Call me a Nazi, but didn't something
    McCarthyesque happen recently to Vanessa Redgrave when her theater
    tour was canceled because she supported the PLO?  Vanessa is, by
    most definitions, a PCW, being hounded by PIPs.

    	"Just like Karl Marx and Simone de Beauvoir (there, I said the
    names), I feel compelled to speak out when I see people demeaning
    each other with metamessages, allusions, and historical half-
    truths that keep Hispanics ignorant, gays closeted, women
    disembodied.  PIPs think this violates their freedom of speech.
    PIPs want freedom to ignore decades of civil rights achievements.
    They want freedom to be intolerant.  They want freedom to teach
    and write exclusively about Eurocentric issues without hearing
    rebuttal.  It's not enough for them that the left is on the run.
    It doesn't give them enough pleasure that 10 years of Reagan-
    Bushonomics has decimated day care, housing and health programs
    for the poor, the sick and the not-so-very-famous.  The PIPs have
    Bush.  They have Quayle. They have the Missouri abortion laws.
    They have the New World Order.  They have it all and they still
    want more.

    	"Frankly, I don't see any alternatives to life as an out-of-
    fashion PC person.  No one has invited me to their club.  Instead,
    I've been told to get a life.  I, PCW, must nod politely when they
    call me a classic bitch and bar me from the football locker room 
    (Victor Kiam), lay back and enjoy it when they rape me (Tex
    Antoine and Bobby Knight), turn away from the women's health
    clinic when they block the door and call me a murderer (Randall
    Terry).  I must can any notion of including meaningful non-white,
    non-straight, non-male experiences into high school curricula.

    	"In this way, I would avoid a label and become a pal to the
    PIPs.  They could continue their lives into eternal PIPitude -
    blissfully unaware of the groans of all those pesky have-nots
    around them.  Many PIPs, not so long ago, wer young lefties with
    tweakable consciences themselves.  Once upon a time, they too were
    perturbed by social inequities around them - cruelties embodied in
    words like 'nigger', 'women's libber', 'faggot', 'pinko', 'Juden'.  
    Now it seems that was just some terrible acid trip.  Ethics are
    unimportant, self-aggrandizing notions.  They're saying that
    language isn't powerful;  that sticks and stones break bones, but
    words float aimlessly out of context.

    	"Shrewd shrew that I am, I have noticed something else.  These
    PIPs are people who make a living using language:  James Barber,
    Jerry Adler, John Taylor, Camille Paglia.  They are writers.  They
    are thinkers.  They are professors.  Words, they know, are not
    just arbitrary scribbles on the page.  Words carry tremendous power
    - historical, linguistic impact.  Forty years ago it was okay to
    call blacks "coloreds."  Twenty years ago it was okay to call
    grown women "girls."  Now, these labelers are turning the 
    "Politically Correct" into a slur.  I am their target this time.
    It's PC to actively oppose the gulf war.  It's PC to support AIDS
    research over Patriot missiles.  It's PC to encourage learning
    things other than white-male-Western culture at school.  Soon,
    mainstream magazines and professors may succeed in bludgeoning all
    voices of dissent into silence.  Love it or leave it.  Gimme
    Sweden."

    
    Yeah, kinda makes one wonder how anyone could possibly disagree
    with the holders of the so-called high moral ground...