The article title was meant to be eye catching, and it certainly attracted attention. Because of that attention, I began to keep the file current by adding links to articles on child abuse, as I came across them in my daily reading. As I did so, I began to notice how frequent were reports of women killing and otherwise abusing men. As time passed I saw the need to set up a special article on the topic and so created the file entitled: The Other Side of Violence: Women Abusing Children.
On September 8th 2007 I came across a news item entitled: Exposing the anti-male myth By Bettina Arndt, and was actually stunned by what I read. It seems that even I was unaware of the degree to which Women abuse.
Since that time I have been researching the issue of Feminine Violence, and during that process began to have my understanding enlarged on a whole range of societal issues. Once I began to understand the emotional process of abuse, I began to see connections to so many issues in life, and finally began to understand more clearly, why it is that I absolutely hate Political Correctness and Multiculturalism fanatics.
Today in this article, I am going to look at the issue of 'Emotional Abuse', through a variety of lenses. Each lens filters and uses information gleaned from articles related to the abuse of men by women. We will start with a look at abuse within religious and political contexts, before moving on to address issues related to Children and their fathers.
Part A of This Article is divided into the following Sections:
Introduction: What is Emotional Abuse?
1. Religion, Fundamentalism, Terrorism and Abuse. a. : The Religion and Power of Feminism.
2. Emotional Abuse in Politics and Political Activism a. Brainwashing
Section 3. Can We Escape from an Abuser's Emotional Abuse a. Is it possible to identify an Emotional Abuser? b. How Can I Know if someone is an Emotional Abuser? c. How do We Identify an Abuser's Victim
Section 4. Lies and Shame: Two Particular Aspects of Abuse
Section 5. Mothers who abuse Children
Section 6. Why do Mothers Abuse Children? : Personal Reflections
Section 7. Male Victims of Female Emotional Abuse a. Are you an abused Male? b. Some Things to Watch out For c. About Domestic Violence Against Men
Section 8. Summary: So Where Do We Go From Here?
Section 9. Repeating Key Ideas.
Section 10. Bibliography
Note: Whilst you might prefer to proceed immediately to a particular section that catches your eye, it is prudent to read the article from the beginning. The article is designed to build a picture of the dynamics of abuse. In order to get the full picture, it is best to "connect the dots" by reading each consecutive section.
Emotional Abuse & Female Emotional Abusers
Introduction
The Difference between Emotional Offence and Emotional Abuse!
What is Emotional Abuse?
We live in a complex world that just loves to reduce everything to slogans and catch phrases. In today's politically correct world, I can call you a whole string of bad names and get away with it, unless I happen to include some reference to your colour, ethnicity, gender or sexual preference. (The words White - Caucasian - Male and Heterosexual are not however considered derogatory or offensive.) At that point, you will be permitted to claim that you suffered from 'emotional pain, distress or trauma'. This would classify you as having been 'emotionally abused'.
We are all taught that we should not call 'fat' people, 'fat'. It is impolite and hurtful. But what about calling someone 'skinny'? Ever thought how 'skinny' people feel when you call them 'skinny'? Whilst old fashioned 'name calling' used to offend people, today that name calling is considered emotional abuse, and can be subject to criminal prosecution. But is there a difference between 'emotional offence' and 'emotional abuse'?
Many different people can be emotionally offended for many different reasons, so first off, I want to clarify here, that this article is not about 'emotional offence'. It is not about being upset by someone who offends your emotions.
Secondly, 'emotional abuse' will not be linked to 'physical domestic violence'. Domestic violence, which is ultimately about power and control, is classifiable as 'emotional abuse'. In this article we will look at emotional abuse in it's non physically violent form, and it is necessary first of all, to see that there is a difference between deliberately, accidentally or casually offending someone's emotional sensibilities and (consciously or subconsciously) choosing a person to be your 'long term captive victim'.
I use the expression 'long term captive victim' deliberately, for it carries within it the concept that Emotional Abuse as a psychotic or neurotic disorder, has as it's objective, to 'take you prisoner' (as opposed to just hurt you); a concept that is missing from those 'other' incidents that we might (justifiably) call, 'emotional abuse'. Whilst it is easy to identify someone who hurts us emotionally, it is not always so easy to identify those who are emotionally abusing us.
Abuse is about control and the fear of losing it. Most abusers abuse surreptitiously. They are "stealth abusers". You have to actually live with one in order to witness the mistreatment. Verbal/Emotional Abuse - Sam Vaknin
In this article, "emotional abuse" will be treated as a specific pathological condition manifest in the abuser, and inflicted continuously (or long term) upon the victim. 'Emotional Abuse' in this article is confined to non physical abuse designed to control the thoughts, feelings, mind and behaviours of the victim. If I could reduce 'my' definition of emotional abuse to a single sentence, it would be this:
Emotional Abuse is what an abuser continuously and deliberately does to another person, because the abuser (even if subconsciously) not only knows exactly how and when to make the 'victim' feel guilty, worthless, and dependent, but has an emotional need for the victim to be so.
Section 1.
Religion, Fundamentalism, Terrorism and Abuse.
I deliberately commence this article here, because I think that I hardly need to provide references for my statements, as the concepts are so commonplace, that they are already accepted 'as a given' within society, even though few people probably stop to think what the concepts really mean.
When you mention paedophilia or sexual abuse within the context of religion, everybody agrees that the abuse occurs because the 'authority figure' (priest, minister, deacon or whoever), has used their power and position to trick, coerce, force or manipulate the 'victim', into doing something that the victim did not consciously choose or want. The Abuser uses 'special knowledge' in relation to the victim's emotional and/or mental state, so as to achieve what would not otherwise have been possible. Furthermore, he uses that special knowledge in combination with his position and power, to guarantee that he will not be exposed.
Whilst most people would probably agree with these statements in relation to sexual abuse and domestic violence, I doubt that many would ever stop to consider those same statements within the context of how we are treated by 'activist interest groups'. But more on that later.
Ruth Stein wrote an article entitled: Fundamentalism, Father and Son, and Vertical Desire on the relationship that exists between religious fundamentalism and terrorism, and postulates:- my position foregrounds the libidinal and perverted relations between a certain kind of believer and his God, in which the libidinal and the violent come together. The following is her Introduction:
In this paper I describe a certain state of mind which, conjoined with cultural and group processes, leads to fundamentalism, and with further developments, to coercive and violent fundamentalism. Hallmarks of this state are a sense of utter certainty, a feeling of being in the right, hermetic consistency, and highly rhetorical reiterations of Truths. I describe how the simplification of complexities into binary oppositions (basically of good and bad) not only creates order out of chaos and vagueness, but also constitutes a "vertical" homoerotic quest for God's love. These processes of ordering and desire are supported by the need to sacrifice, by masochism and coercion, and are enacted by increasingly severe purification processes. It is usually assumed that the religious quest is a search for meaning, but, as will hopefully become clear, this quest is at the same time a series of transformations of fear. In this latter sense, the fundamentalist state of mind originates from what may be likened to an extreme and long-extended form of what we experience at those moments and hours when anxiety and fear, or shame, overwhelm us and reduce us to helplessness, a painful sense of smallness, and the feeling of being at the mercy of greater powers than ourselves.
Basically, there are two elemental types of fear leading to fundamentalist formations: (1) fear of death, or rather, of personal annihilation (see the works of Rank, Becker, or Lifton), and (2) the fear and rage in the face of the very existence of the other human being, whose presence and intentions are experienced as an obstacle to one's desires (Hegel, Sartre, Klein in their works develop this predicament). Fundamentalism would then be the quest to get rid of these experiences, or to violently transcend them. Human destructiveness and self-destructiveness is to a large extent the need to destroy these fears. Significantly, the destruction of fear and rage can be accomplished through processes of idealization and purification in whose service destructiveness is being battled, and at the same time, enacted, even worshipped.
Reference to Stein's article appears here not merely because it is well worth the read but because it serves as a legitimizing foundation for what later will follow.
Now if you thought that this section was going to be an expose or defence of religion, then you are off the mark. I include this reference because Stein's work is 'male centred', and today we will 'flip the coin' and look at the feminine side of fundamentalism and terrorism. Stein sees a connection between the emotional needs of the Male, his connection to Deity, and his terrorizing of the Female, and within this article, I am going to suggest that the converse of Stein's observations can be equally true.
1.a. : The Religion and Power of Feminism.
Emotional abuse is undoubtedly 'violent' in nature, but whereas it is easy for us (even without Stein's comments) to see the connection between 'male power and libido', I doubt that many have ever considered the connection between 'female power and libido'. Perhaps we could substitute the word 'gender' for libido in this case.
Whilst (Christian) monotheism is predominantly 'Male Centred', (the worship of the feminine having been destroyed by monotheists ages ago - although some protestants might disagree in relation to Catholicism), in the last few decades the women's movement has revived the pagan worship of the 'goddess'. It may not appear in the form of a formal religion, but that it exists, can hardly be denied, in the face of literary references to it.
The Feminist Movement Who are they really? Goddesses who have been forced into amnesia by primitive white men trying to keep them from their true potential. Feminism is in fact a spiritual movement based partly on reawakening of "goddess consciousness," and its real goal is matriarchy, not equality.
On the Proliferation of Goddess Imagery in Popular Culture One of the primary sacred narratives of Dianic Witchcraft was built upon the idea that in civilizations past women held higher status than contemporary society and was only lessened when matriarchy gave way to patriarchy
Feminism is at least in practice if not in heart, (despite it's legitimate political philosophy and ideology), the worship of the female above the male. If we look back to Stein's introduction above, and substitute 'maleness' for 'femaleness', we could posit the following:
The Feminist state of mind originates from anxiety, fear, or shame, that makes her feel helplessness, small, and at the mercy of men
Her two elemental types of fear are of personal annihilation (loss of identity) and her rage at the human Male, who is seen as an obstacle to her desires
The destruction of her fear and rage can be achieved by 'self-idealization' and purification through doing battle with the male and worshipping both the battle and her femininity.
Stein posits that it is this process in men, that leads to (Islamic) terrorism against the 'infidel'. Therefore, if we substitute Feminist for Male Terrorist, we can consider that it is the woman who is required to repudiate men and live in submission to her goddess in hopes of achieving the promise of immortality. It could be said that Fundamentalist Feminism is (to some degree at least), out to terrorise the infidel males. (In the next section we will return to look at 'fundamentalism'.)
Stein relates that fundamentalism is inherently 'unequal' in it's consideration of the genders. Like the Islamic terrorists who view the west as powerful, perverted and to blame for all the suffering of the Islamic World, 21st Century Western Society accepts that men are the source of all evil, hold all the power, and look down upon and abuse women. If abuse of women is ultimately derived from the Patriarchal worship of the Masculine gods, should it surprise us to see Feminism today expressing itself through Misandry, the abusive feminine form of the masculine Chauvinism?
The Feminist movement today is on a power trip! That it is a well deserved power trip - for equal rights and mutual respect - is irrelevant. Ultimately Power corrupts and today we live in a world in which those who profess to want 'equality' - equal rights and mutual respect - having gained such immense power, that they are no longer happy just to achieve their 'ultruistic' goals. Today, Feminism wants only one thing - Power! And Emotional Abuse is about 'power'!
Section 2.
Emotional Abuse in Politics and Political Activism
Emotional abuse is the process (consciously or subconsciously) of having power over and controlling 'the other', whose thinking and behaviour is not in line with our own. Our drives requires us to 'control' the other, so as to both empower and legitimize our (emotional) position.
Given the technology we have today, it is an easy thing for information to be disseminated, and to paraphrase an old maxim: Information is Power. Minds are shaped by external influences and no where is this more obvious than in the media. The Media is used both legitimately and illegitimately in the battle to control the minds, hearts and emotions of the public. (What is Truth? A Political Camera Angle!)
Recently there was a news headline in Australia which Read: Toddler drowned while father in shower. What impression does that headline give you? If you are like me, you instantaneously felt angry that a careless father did not make sure that his child was safe while he took a shower. However, when you read the article, a different picture emerges: "Family members failed to notice the little boy walk out of the Beechboro home.."
Whilst the headline gives you the impression that there were only two people in the house, the fact is that the toddler's death was not related to the father taking a shower, although it must be said that the ages of the other people there at the time were not provided.
So I have to ask: What was the point of the headline? Was it misleading? How misleading was it? Did readers notice that it was misleading? Is it possible that we have succumbed so completely to the feminist 'Men are Guilty of Everything' chant; so completely brainwashed, that we don't think twice before 'dumping' on men? Do we just accept that everything is the fault of the male?
Using one website's material on Emotional Abuse, and adjusting it to fit this particular section, I would like to look at some issues related to 'emotional brainwashing'.
The brainwasher keeps the victim unaware of what is going on and what changes are taking place.
The brainwasher puts forth a closed system of logic, and allows no real input or criticism.
The brainwasher controls the victim's time and physical environment, and works to suppress much of the victim's old behavior. The victim is slowly, or abruptly, isolated from all supportive persons except the brainwasher.
The brainwasher works to instill new behavior and attitudes in the victim.
The brainwasher creates in the victim a sense of powerlessness, fear, and dependency.
In other words - What he/she/they says, goes.
Whilst there is no doubt that people voluntarily submit to brainwashing, we as a society are I believe, daily 'brainwashed' through both the media and political activism. From that perspective, let's see how the points mentioned above might apply to political activism.
(i)
The brainwasher keeps the victim unaware of what is going on.
Recently I read an article that brought this point home to me, on an issue that I would never have connected to the topic of Abuse. Written by Jeff Lukens and entitled: Reflections on the Watergate tragedy it contained several extremely interesting points.
Those who were after Nixon for Watergate had been after him for a long time. Watergate was just the pretext. They sought to prosecute him as aggressively as he had prosecuted Hiss and the Vietnam War.
He had been correct about his opposition to communism. He had been correct about Alger Hiss and how to end the Vietnam War. But what did that matter to the Left? Watergate was the result of Vietnam, and the collapse of South Vietnam was the result of Watergate. The upheaval that followed his presidency in Southeast Asia, Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere proved that his policies had been correct all along.
Whilst not at any point justifying Nixon's Watergate involvement and behaviour, the author highlights for us, the true cause of Nixon's downfall. Had it not been Watergate, it would have been something else, for in the end, the real reason for Nixon's downfall, was that he made the mistake of providing his abusers with the 'branch upon which his own noose could be hung.' In this respect then, (and this is specifically mentioned in the article), the public was not truly aware of what was going on. They, like Watergate were being 'used' to justify someone else's desire to control, manipulate and destroy Nixon.
(ii)
The brainwasher puts forth a closed system of logic and allows no real input or criticism.
In 1993, New York-based writer and psychotherapist, Nina Silver wrote an article entitled: Is 'Political Correctness' Big Brother in drag– or a laudable attempt to give the oppressed a chance? (New Internationalist - Issue 249 - November 1993). The article was about a (Jewish) university student who, "roused from sleep by some noisy, drunken classmates, shouted to the group that they were worse than a herd of water buffalo." For this he was denounced as a 'racist'. Silver writes:
While supporters of multicultural diversity applauded his censure no-one seemed to take account of Jacobowitz’s own Jewish background. Had they, they might have discovered that in Hebrew the word ‘behama’ – which means water oxen – is slang for ‘dolt’."
I think that to effectively launch multiculturalism, we must be clear that there is an immense difference between a private conversation and publicly-sanctioned, institutionalised hatred and prejudice. Students should have the right, either publicly or privately, to speak their minds. Tolerance and open-mindedness cannot flourish in the presence of fear. Democracy is a living, breathing thing that transforms with people’s needs and conditions of life. Unless those who advocate social change are prepared to deal with the oscillations inherent in any viable social system, they will end up as rigid and intolerant as their critics.
Political Correctness Thought Police and the Multiculturalism Thought Police are very quick (in the name of non-discrimination) to accuse, point the finger, abuse and vilify anyone who says anything of which they disapprove, and as Silver points out above, not only is there no interest in the 'wider or broader picture', but there was the risk - back in 1993 - which has now become a reality in 2008, that those who preach diversity end up becoming intolerant, undemocratic, and totalitarian.
The reason for this is that what commenced as a wonderful 'ideology' has been corrupted by the driving needs of those who most vehemently push the political correctness agenda. The base root of that corruption, is that 'activists' have several sometimes conflicting emotional motivators that require them to control the thoughts, words and actions of the public, so that the activist themselves can feel secure, righteous and worthwhile.
One thing that is not considered by many, is that Thought Police are as easily affected by 'reaction formation', as any other person, and the dogged determination to 'enforce' a particular ideology, may arise from the fact that the enforcer suffers an inner conflict. That conflict may arise between the natural feelings of the enforcer, and the ideology that they espouse.
It can be said that- when a person seeks to cover up something unacceptable by adopting an opposite stance - they are exhibiting Reaction Formation. When a person cannot accept that they have within themselves the very thing which they despise, they vehemently seek to enforce the 'right way' on others. Refer to: Sneers from those who think they're above it all : By Michael Duffy : December 17, 2005
When Pauline Hanson was in Parliament, preachers such as Robert Hughes enthusiastically condemned the innate racism of the Australian people. There were numerous gleeful predictions of suburban pogroms. But what happened was that nearly all the violence flowed the other way. At Hanson's apogee, hundreds of people would demonstrate outside her meetings, abusing, and in some cases spitting on and attacking, those who came to see her. Many were frightened away. It was possibly the most disgraceful episode in the recent history of our democracy. Strangely, it went almost completely uncriticised by the educated middle classes.
BenDedek Comment: The activists accused M/s Hanson of Promoting Violence, or being racist (discriminatory), of being undemocratic, but what flowed from them demonstrated quite clearly that they cared nothing for the democratic process; that they were violent and discriminatory. The very things they claimed to hold dear were trodden under foot as they proclaimed their 'righteous beliefs'.
(iii)
The brainwasher controls the victim's time and physical environment, and works to suppress much of the victim's old behaviour. The victim is slowly, or abruptly, isolated from all supportive persons except the brainwasher.
When we think of brainwashing, we probably think of totalitarian regimes and fundamentalist religion. It is interesting therefore to read Michael Brooks article entitled: Fundamentalists are just like us
Scott Atran knows a thing or two about fundamentalists, and as far as he's concerned, they are nice people. "I certainly find very little hatred; they act out of love," he says. "These people are very compassionate." Atran, who studies group dynamics at the University of Michigan, is talking about suicide bombers, extremists by anyone's standards and not representative of fundamentalist ideology in general ( New Scientist, 23 July, page 18 ). But surprisingly, much of what Atran has discovered about suicide bombers helps to explain the psychology of all fundamentalist movements.
The conclusion they came to was that there is no real difference between fundamentalists and everybody else. "The fundamentalist mentality is part of human nature," writes Stuart Sim, a cultural theorist at the University of Sunderland in the UK. "All of us are capable of exhibiting this kind of behaviour."
The psychology of fundamentalism is, literally, more than the sum of its parts; taken individually, fundamentalists are rather unremarkable. "The notion that you might be able to find something in a fundamentalist's brain scan is a non-starter," says John Brooke, a professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford.
In general, fundamentalists seem to be well-balanced people. They score highly on subjective measures of marital happiness, optimism and self-control, and have a low incidence of depression and anxiety.
An obvious explanation for this is that fundamentalist belief is fulfilling some hard-wired psychological need for certainty and security in a world where such comforts are hard to come by.
All forms of politically motivated activism are 'fundamentalist' in nature, which is why feminists and gay activists have gone way beyond the goal of 'equality', to seek to dominate and control anyone who is not like them or does not approve of them. It is why those who oppose 'racism', find no objection to white people being abused by black people; why those who preach 'human rights', and would imprison or execute a 'man' for killing an unborn child, support the mother's right to kill her unborn child; why environmentalists who want to protect 'mother nature', view mankind as 'outside' the evolutionary model, and worthy of annihilation. Each group contains nice, decent, compassionate, sane, normal people, who, for the sake of 'the cause', have no compunction in destroying the 'enemy'. Consider these next two references within the context of the forgoing statements:
We must hate - hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists. V. I. Lenin - speech to the Commissars of Education, Moscow, 1923. Why Cisero? - Thomas Brewton.
Because female genital mutilation is locked into religious zeal as well as male dominance it is most difficult to get the populace to stop the custom. Yet there are those determined to halt it. Female Genital Mutilation Criminal? - J. Grant Swank Jr. (Religious Zeal + Dominance + Traditional Customs = Difficulty changing.)
To have ideals is wonderful, but to follow an ideology - to worship an ideology - to push everything aside for the ideology - is the same as fundamentalist religion. Activism is supposed to be an end to a goal, but in reality, many activists have only one goal - to be activists. The adrenalin rush of a battle is strong, and the euphoria at winning is intoxicating, but then what? Do we pack up and go home? Of course - many do! But for some, the euphoria is replaced with a depressing emptiness, the cure for which, is to fight another battle. And so the part time warrior becomes a full time warrior, picking fights to justify another battle. That's how I see 'political activism', and that is what emotional abuse is all about. Looking for battlegrounds upon which to find victory!
(iv)
The brainwasher works to instil new behaviour and attitudes in the victim.
There is a huge difference between 'educating' people in manners, customs, and social mores and norms, and 'brainwashing' people so as to control their behaviour. In today's society, we are lucky if we - the dissenters of certain types of activism - can escape from the power of brainwashing, suffering only 'emotional abuse'. Activists groups of all kinds consider, - are turning to, - or approve of violence in achieving their ideological goals, and this is to be expected if one approaches 'fundamentalist activism' in the same way one considers 'religious fundamentalism'. The word 'Religious' is just an adjective to qualify the noun 'Fundamentalism'.
Fundamentalism as described above by Stein, fulfils "some hard-wired psychological need for certainty and security" in the mind of the follower. Any fundamentalist, is therefore likely to abuse you, physically and/or emotionally. Not only is this true in the fields of religion and political activism, but as the report from Apologetics Press shows, even within the scientific arena, outright fraud and deception is practiced by those with a need to 'prove that they are right'.
Frauds in Science by Wayne Jackson Dogmatic, sweeping statements that had been made with an air of absolute confidence ultimately required public retraction. Perhaps as embarrassing as the fraudulent nature of the Piltdown affair, however, was the fact that a number of the world’s leading evolutionary experts were fooled by the hoax for over 40 years.
(v)
The brainwasher creates in the victim a sense of powerlessness, fear and dependency.
I doubt that any western man alive today, and living in a western society, would deny that he lives in fear of offending a feminist; of being branded 'racist' for some slip of the tongue; or of being accused of being homophobic. I would go further and say that any sensible heterosexual male goes out of his way to make sure he does not end up on the wrong side of some 'minority groups' firing line.
Such is the fear that a brainwashed 'democratic and free western person has', that he probably doesn't even realise that he is fearful, and certainly can't see the contradiction between his belief in the right to free speech, and his refusal to say what he really thinks or feels. Whilst those who step beyond the bounds of what is acceptable to the abusers are usually only 'emotionally abused', there are sufficient examples in the daily press in any western society, of what can happen to those who 'don't toe the line'.
An 'emotional abuser', no matter the gender, the ideology, the politics, or the cause, is no different to a 'religious fundamentalists' who has no qualms in killing an abortionist. Emotional Abusers are no different to the other 6 billion people in the world, with the exception that their own emotional security 'depends' on strict and comforting compliance of their victim's behaviour.
Ill-treatment is an absurd effort to maintain and enhance the abuser's hegemony - social, cultural, legal, and, above all, psychological. Abusers exploit, lie, insult, demean, ignore (the "silent treatment"), manipulate, and control. There are a million ways to abuse, directly and by proxy. To expect too much, to denigrate, to ignore - are all modes of abuse. There is physical abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse. The list is long. Most abusers abuse surreptitiously. They are "stealth abusers".Verbal/Emotional Abuse - Sam Vaknin
(vi)
In other words - What he/she/they says, goes.
This is the penultimate purpose of any brainwashing and all emotional abuse. Whether the perpetrator is religious, secular, male, female, old, young, married, single, rich, poor, western, eastern, black, white, political or non political, the ultimate aim is always the same: "Do as I command, or I will (figuratively or literally) kill you".
Overall though, the most important and shared element of all those abusers pushing their particular brand of fundamentalism or other type of brainwashing, and those using political and emotional power to abuse, ( eg: Political Correctness Thought Police) is that their actions originate within a 'psyche' that is itself, emotionally unhealthy.
What is important to remember is that:Abusers need their victims, far more than the victims need their abusers. Until victims realise this, they have no hope of any power to escape their terror. To Quote Andrew Vachss (You Carry the Cure in Your Own Heart)
The primary weapons of emotional abusers is the deliberate infliction of guilt. They use guilt the same way a loan shark uses money: They don't want the "debt" paid off, because they live quite happily on the "interest."
King's Calendar Articles on Political Correctness.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
