Big bullies

Bullying is a form of aggressive behavior manifested by the use of force or coercion to affect others, particularly when the behavior is habitual and involves an imbalance of power. It can include verbal harassment, physical assault or coercion and may be directed repeatedly towards particular victims, perhaps on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexuality, or ability. The “imbalance of power” may be social power and/or physical power. The victim of bullying is sometimes referred to as a “target”.

Bullying consists of three basic types of abuse – emotional, verbal, and physical. It typically involves subtle methods of coercion such as intimidation. Bullying can be defined in many different ways. The UK currently has no legal definition of bullying while some U.S. states have laws against it.

Bullying ranges from simple one-on-one bullying to more complex bullying in which the bully may have one or more ‘lieutenants’ who may seem to be willing to assist the primary bully in his bullying activities. Bullying in school and the workplace is also referred to as peer abuse. Robert W. Fuller has analyzed bullying in the context of rankism.

Bullying can occur in any context in which human beings interact with each other. This includes school, church, family, the workplace, home, and neighborhoods. It is even a common push factor in migration. Bullying can exist between social groups, social classes, and even between countries (see jingoism). In fact, on an international scale, perceived or real imbalances of power between nations, in both economic systems and in treaty systems, are often cited as some of the primary causes of both World War I and World War II.


13 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Kim
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 11:22:38

    Political Correctness
    by Philip Atkinson (October 2011)

    What Is Political Correctness?
    Political Correctness (PC) is the communal tyranny that erupted in the 1980s. It was a spontaneous declaration that particular ideas, expressions and behaviour, which were then legal, should be forbidden by law, and people who transgressed should be punished. (see Newspeak) It started with a few voices but grew in popularity until it became unwritten and written law within the community. With those who were publicly declared as being not politically correct becoming the object of persecution by the mob, if not prosecution by the state.

    The Odious Nature Of Political Correctness
    To attempt to point out the odious nature of Political Correctness is to restate the crucial importance of plain speaking, freedom of choice and freedom of speech; these are the community’s safe-guards against the imposition of tyranny, indeed their absence is tyranny (see “On Liberty”, Chapter II, by J.S. Mill). Which is why any such restrictions on expression such as those invoked by the laws of libel, slander and public decency, are grave matters to be decided by common law methodology; not by the dictates of the mob.

    Clear Inspiration For Political Correctness
    The declared rational of this tyranny is to prevent people being offended; to compel everyone to avoid using words or behaviour that may upset homosexuals, women, non-whites, the crippled, the stupid, the fat or the ugly. This reveals not only its absurdity but its inspiration. The set of values that are detested are those held by the previous generation (those who fought the Second World War), which is why the terms niggers, coons, dagos, wogs, poofs, spastics and sheilas, have become heresy, for, in an act of infantile rebellion, their subject have become revered by the new generation. Political Correctness is merely the resentment of spoilt children directed against their parent’s values.

    The Origins Of Political Correctness
    A community declines when the majority of its citizens become selfish, and under this influence it slowly dismantles all the restraints upon self-indulgence established by manners, customs, beliefs and law: tradition. (See the law of reverse civilization) As each subsequent generation of selfish citizens inherits control of the community, it takes its opportunity to abandon more of the irksome restraints that genius and wisdom had installed. The proponents of this social demolition achieve their irrational purpose by publicly embracing absurdity through slogans while vilifying any who do not support their stance. The purpose of the slogan is to enshrine irrational fears, or fancies, as truth through the use of presumptuous words, so public pronouncement:

    Dissembles the real nature of the claim
    Identifies any dissenters as enemies of the truth
    Acts as an excuse for any crimes committed in its name

    For example the slogan Australia is Multicultural is a claim that:

    Different cultures are compatible.
    People who contradict this claim are blinded by prejudice against other cultures.
    People who contradict this claim are trouble-making bigots, which makes them enemies of the community, if not humanity, and deserving persecution.

    All of which is an attack upon truth, clear thinking and plain speaking.

    Outright Assault Upon Tradition
    Naturally as the restraints shrink the rebellion grows ever more extreme in nature. When the author of Animal Farm wrote an article in 1946 about the pleasures of a rose garden, he was criticised for being bourgeois. George Orwell mentions this in his essay A Good Word For The Vicar Of Bray, published in the Tribune, 1946. The term bourgeois was then a popular slogan meaning having humdrum middle class ideas (The Oxford English Dictionary 3rd Edition, 1938), which is just a blatant attack upon tradition — the sanity of the community.

    From Bourgeois To Racist
    Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois (retaining traditional notions), is being labelled racist, sexist etc. and risk losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street, being subject to judicial penalty and death threats. And it is this very extremity of reaction that has won media attention and the name Political Correctness, though the reaction will become even more unpleasant with the next generation.

    Parental Values Always Attacked
    The inevitable scapegoat for people impatient of restraint must always be parents, because these are society’s agents for teaching private restraint. So the cherished notions of the parents are always subject to attack by their maturing offspring. This resentment of tradition was observed in his own civilization by Polybius (c. 200-118 BC), the Greek historian, who said:

    “For every democracy which has enjoyed prosperity for a considerable period first develops through its nature an attitude of discontent towards the existing order,..” — The Rise Of The Roman Empire Book 8, paragraph 24

    Tyranny Grows
    Once a community embraces tyranny the penalties can only grow in severity. This gradual increase is easily seen by the example of Toastmasters. As the members of the club became more concerned about the delights of socializing and less concerned about the disciplines of public speaking, they became more intolerant of citizens who were earnest about learning the art of rhetoric. Once those members who did their duty by truthfully pointing out the shortcomings in another member’s performance were just labeled as negative or discouraging; later this became a risk of being socially ostracized. Now (since 1998) unpopularity can result in being permanently ejected from the club by a majority vote.

    Australian Experience Of PC Tyranny
    In my country the tyranny erupted with the persecution of public figures such as Arthur Tunstall for uttering truths that had become unpopular, either directly in a speech, or indirectly by telling jokes. The maiden speech of the Federal Member of Parliament for Ipswich contained so many disliked truths that the rabble escalated the ferocity of their attack and extended them to her supporters, introducing terror into Australian politics. Anyone who watched the TV coverage (1997/8) of Pauline Hanson’s political campaign will have seen the nature of her opponents; a throng who looked and behaved more like barbarians than citizens of a civilized community. And any mob that chants “Burn the witch” (when she spoke outside an Ipswich hall after she had been refused entry) leaves no doubt as to their intent or character.

    Widespread Throughout The Community
    Revealing the extent of the mob’s support, their sentiments (suitably refined) were enthusiastically echoed by the media and the administration. And in an unprecedented act of cooperation, all the political parties conspired to eject Ms Hanson from the federal parliament in the election of October 3rd 1998. This was revealed by the how-to-vote cards of the parties contesting the seat of Blaire, which all placed Ms Hanson last. This was a public admission by both the major parties that they would rather risk losing the election than allow this forthright woman to keep her seat in parliament.

    International Experience Of PC Tyranny
    And it is not just in Australia but in every western democratic country popular demands have been made for restrictions on expression. Bowing to the clamour of the electorate, politicians in these countries have enacted absurd laws. The Australian community wide declaration of irrational hatred displayed by the persecution of Pauline Hanson, paralleled the Canadian experience of Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc., and the examples of the national soccer coach of England and a prominent public servant in Washington, USA confirm that the hysteria is everywhere.

    The Inevitable Result Of Political Correctness
    By using the excuse of not upsetting anyone, the politically correct are demanding that people behave like the fool who would please everyone; that everyone must become such a fool! All must accept the notions of the Politically Correct as truth, or else! This is the same mentality that inspired the Inquisition and forced Galileo to recant; the same mentality that inspired the Nazis and obtained the Holocaust. Once expression gets placed in a straitjacket of official truth, then the madness that occurs in all totalitarian states is obtained. Life, in private and public, becomes a meaningless charade where delusion thrives and terror rules.

    Examples Of Denying Freedom Of Speech
    Evidence of this effect is amply demonstrated by the Soviets, who embraced Political Correctness with the Communist Revolution. The lumbering, pompous, impoverished, humourless monster this Nation became is now History. And it should be remembered that in 1914 Tsarist Russia was considered by Edmund Cars, a French economist who then published a book about the subject, to be an economic giant set to overshadow Europe. The SBS television program “What Ever Happened To Russia”, which was broadcast at 8.30 pm on 25th August 1994, detailed the terrible effect the Bolshevik’s oppression had on their empire. And SBS further detailed the terrible crimes inflicted upon the Russians by their leader Stalin, in the series “Blood On The Snow” broadcast in March 1999. (Also see “Stalin’s Secret War” by Nikolai Tolstoy)

    An Old Witness
    Helen, a member of Parramatta writers club in 1992, was a citizen of Kiev during the Red Terror, and described living with official truth and the constant threat of arrest. Knowing the content of the latest party newspaper was critical to avoiding internment, as public contradiction, either directly or indirectly, meant denouncement to the KGB. If you complained about being hungry when food shortages were not officially recognized, then you became an enemy of the state. If you failed to praise a Soviet hero, or praised an ex-hero, then again your fate was sealed. The need to be politically correct dominated all conversation and behaviour, as failure meant drastic penalty. Uncertainty and fear pervaded everything, nobody could be sure that an official request to visit Party headquarters meant imprisonment, torture, death, public reward or nothing important.

    Living with such a terrible handicap naturally destroyed all spontaneity of thought or action, rendering the whole community mad. The awful effect this had upon Helen’s sanity was made clear when she escaped to Australia. Here she encountered the free press, which had an unpleasant impact upon her. One day she read The Australian newspaper which happened to carry two separate articles about Patrick White, one praising, the other denigrating, this well known writer. Poor Helen found herself turning from one to the other, which was she to repeat as correct? She nearly had a nervous breakdown.

    Political Correctness Is Social Dementia
    Unless plain speaking is allowed, clear thinking is denied. There can be no good reason for denying freedom of expression, there is no case to rebut, only the empty slogans of people inspired by selfishness and unrestrained by morality. The proponents of this nonsense neither understand the implications of what they say, nor why they are saying it: they are insane; which must mean that any community that embraces Political Correctness has discarded sanity.

    Social Decline Grows Worse With Each Generation
    Political Correctness is part of the social decline that generation by generation makes public behaviour less restrained and less rational.


  2. Kim
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 11:24:00

    Heresy Prosecutions
    Signal The Re-appearance Of The Inquisition In The 21st Century

    The following three cases reveal that the judicial procedure has become an instrument of tyranny concerned with enforcing the adoption of the irrational notions of Political Correctness. This means that, like all inquisitions, to be charged is to be guilty, for the court is there to penalise anyone who contradicts official madness, so neither truth nor reason can be used in defending the accused.

    Brick layer Brad Love was jailed for eighteen months for complaining to his member of parliament about immigration in Canada, spring 2003

    Ernst Zundel, after being arrested in the USA in 2003, illegally deported to a Canadian goal and held in solitary confinement, was then deported to a German goal in 2005 where he was tried (June 2006) for inciting racial hatred. And in Mannheim, Germany, on Thursday 15th February 2007 the 67-year-old was convicted of 14 counts of incitement and sentenced to the maximum of 5 years in prison.

    British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna, Monday 20 February 2006, of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison. Irving is an authority on the murder of the Jews in Europe during the Second World War, having visited the sites, studied original documents and interviewed people involved. The crime of ‘Denying the Holocaust’ is that of contradicting the Austrian government’s version of the genocide, for which truth is no defence.

    The recreation of the irresistible insane monster of the Inquisition is clearly revealed by David Irving’s open letter (April 7th 2007):

    . . .the German Government has quietly admitted that over the last twelve months it prosecuted over 18,000 Germans for offences of “right-wing extremism,” of which only a few hundred involved actual violence: i.e. they prosecuted over seventeen thousand thought-crimes—people unwitting displaying the old swastika emblem, or even worse, National Socialist ideas, and perhaps even “denying the H[olocaust].”

    As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recently pointed out in a courageous editorial, most of these new criminal records have been sprung on ordinary citizens blissfully unaware of the criminality of their actions and thoughts, because the tame German media are too cowardly to report any of these cases— even the major trials like those involving the revisionists Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf.

    These absurd laws themselves are protected by fresh layers of other, even more absurd, laws making it impossible even for court-appointed attorneys to provide an adequate and conscientious defence to those accused under the thought-crime laws. Any German or Austrian lawyer who does, can be—and frequently is—himself ordered arrested by the judge, for having associated himself with these criminal thoughts and deeds. Zündel’s court-appointed defence attorney Sylvia Stolz made herself unpopular with the prosecutor for “hampering the prosecution,” and is now to be prosecuted for so hampering. Go figure, as the Americans say.

    More than once my chosen Austrian lawyer, Dr Herbert Schaller, arrived in the Vienna prison with fresh horror tales from Zündel’s Mannheim courtroom—the judge Meinerzhagen had warned him that if he asked certain questions of the court, or made certain defence motions, he too would be arrested.

    I remember that in January 1993, when I was tried in Munich under Germany’s laws for the suppression of free speech, one of my three lawyers turned up apologetically on the morning of the hearing apologizing that he could not continue to act for me, as the Munich Bar Association had threatened him with dismissal—i.e. the end of his career—if he did. He showed me their actual letter. I was fined thirty thousand deutschmarks, around twenty thousand dollars, for uttering a single sentence which the Polish authorities now belatedly admit was true.

    ..This morning I have received a letter from Frau K., an elderly Viennese lady in her nineties. Exercising what is the constitutional right of every citizen in most other countries, on September 27 of last year she had written a personal letter to the President of Austria, one Herbert Fischer—a small, straw-haired gentleman of even smaller character and endowed with all the intellect and bearing of Lady Chatterley’s gardener—to protest against my arrest, trial, and imprisonment. “What David Irving said was right,” she wrote in one passage of this incriminating letter.

    She received no presidential reply? Right.— She heard no more? Wrong.

    On March 8 the Austrian criminal authorities sent her a letter fining her the sum of 200 euros under penalty of jail for having written these seditious words to their august president. No trial, no hearing, no defence—no lawyer would have dared to defend her anyway.

    This is the new Europe, coming soon to a jailhouse near us. I for one shall do my damndest to prevent it.


  3. Kim
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 11:25:49

    The Law Of Reverse Civilization
    by Philip Atkinson (9/2/2011)

    “So long as the young generation is, and continues to be, well brought up, our ship of state will have a fair voyage; otherwise the consequences are better left unspoken.” — Plato, Laws

    When a civilization declines it has stopped getting stronger and cleverer, but has started to become sillier and weaker; it has gone into reverse. This waning is the result of a reversal in the nature of authority; instead of authority ruling its charges, its charges rule authority. A change which must be marked by a rebellion where power is forcibly wrested from the traditional rulers and placed in the hands of the agents of ‘the occasional will of the people’—Democracy. An act which Toynbee noted in his work ‘A Study Of History’ as a class war and the inevitable signal of the start of the decline of a civilization.

    Decline is inevitable because the reversal of authority has an immediate and crucial impact on the process by which a community constantly renews itself — the way it rears its children.


  4. Kim
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 12:02:21

    Not only does this taxpayer supported baby-killing organization practically demand that the Susan B. Komen foundation continue to funnel money to them (about time Komen wised up), they also are joining in the attack on the conscience rights of millions of people who don’t want to pay for birth control.

    As egregious as this attack on religious liberty is, I think we’re all missing the bigger point. Why is the federal government mandating anything at all? Collectively, it is those very mandates that are one of the contributing factors to the rising cost of health insurance. Added to federal mandates are state mandates. The higher the number of insurance provider mandates in a state, the higher the cost of insurance. One doesn’t need to be a math wizard to figure this out.


  5. Sherry
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 13:39:48

    From Bourgeois To Racist
    Now, in the late 1990s, the results of being bourgeois (retaining traditional notions), is being labelled racist, sexist etc. and risk losing your job, your reputation, being jostled in the street, being subject to judicial penalty and death threats.

    As if the humdrum middle class extolled racism and sexism as a virtue! These two things were addressed by the very condemned bourgeois!


  6. Kim
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 14:38:25


    • Sherry
      Feb 03, 2012 @ 14:50:38

      I guess they didn’t think the rise in funding after Komen announced no more funding for PP didn’t give them a clue of what Americans believe is the right thing to do.


      • Kim
        Feb 03, 2012 @ 15:12:29

        I have never donated to Komen for the PP reason but I think they are going to have difficulty with donations from this

  7. Kim
    Feb 03, 2012 @ 14:41:26

    It’s official. The Komen Foundation has “apologized” for its Planned Parenthood decision and appears set to reinstate the funding*, thus making our editorial this morning both premature and, in a more profound sense, too late. So, you’re on notice: If you currently donate to PP, you may never stop doing so.

    In the NROHQ kitchen just now, Charlie Cooke wondered aloud, and here I paraphrase: “Does anyone on the Left even ask the basic question of whether a private charitable organization has the right to dispose of its money as it sees fit?” But in fact, that anyone thinks there is a question here is a sign we’ve already lost.


    • Kim
      Feb 03, 2012 @ 14:46:03

      Will Wilkinson, who is pro legal abortion and probably the libertarian with whom I agree least often, gets it exactly right on this score, observing that there is more than a little gangsterism in the response from the PP set:

      You know, I’m not a big fan of Komen’s brandification of breast cancer, I dislike seeing pink ribbons plastered over everything, and I think Planned Parenthood is real swell, abortions and all. So I’m not especially inclined to come to Komen’s aid. But I’ll be damned if this doesn’t look a bit like PP throwing it’s weight around, knocking a few pieces of china off the shelves, sending a message to its other donors: “Nice foundation you got there. Wouldn’t want anything to, you know, happen to it.”


  8. Sherry
    Feb 04, 2012 @ 19:12:41

    I really enjoyed listening to Rubio talk about the right to life in the videos in this article:


    • Sherry
      Feb 04, 2012 @ 19:14:22

      On a political level, this address showcases Rubio’s talent and promise as a future leader. He spoke passionately and eloquently on a difficult subject with limited notes, at which he rarely even glanced. He staked out a bold position without sounding extreme, a difficult needle to thread when tackling hot button controversies. In short, there’s a reason “rising star” buzz and speculation surrounds this guy. On a higher level, Rubio mounted a compelling and persuasive case, dispensing with numerous fallacies advanced by the “choice” cult. Especially salient were his discussions of the unsettled nature of pre- and postpartum viability, and the “unwanted” child logical canard — as well as his contemplation of the conflicting rights conundrum that abortion raises. The shrillest advocates on both sides of this issue often fail to recognize or convey how complicated it is, and can sometimes sound out-of-touch with how most Americans grapple with the question’s many intricacies. In this speech, Rubio advanced a nuanced and thoughtful case for life. Bravo.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: