Excuse me for speaking (Silly me, I thought I had a “right”)

Your right to think out loud is officially up for debate.   Last night the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia held a “panel discussion” on the topic “The Future of Free Speech.”  In it we were treated to the pros and cons of allowing human beings to speak their minds.  That’s what we’ve come to, and it’s appalling.

What next?  A panel discussion on the pros and cons of allowing human beings to breathe?

As with all such discussions, an elitist few take it upon themselves to tell the unwashed masses what they may and may not say — or by logical extension, what they may or may not think.  These self-appointed arbiters of speech and thought are nothing more than a clique or a mob that’s set itself up to control others.  It’s a power grab, and their thinly veiled guise is to claim to protect us all from “hate speech.”  In other words, it’s a protection racket.  There’s no way around this.

Everything about last night’s C-SPAN panel was disturbing:  the arrogance of the plaintiffs, the willingness of the defendants to play nice and even seem jovial about negotiating the rights of everyone else, and the venue itself, the Constitution Center, which seemed happy to give tyranny a day in court.  (No doubt there will be more to come.)   If you care to check it out, here’s the link:  http://www.c-span.org/video/?318476-1/free-speech-us

Proclaiming the Resurrection: Freedom Through Song, Part IV

Christ is Risen!

This video is from a Beirut shopping mall in 2011 when a group of Christians coordinated the sudden singing of the “Jesus is Risen” song to the surprise of many passers-by.  As we remember and pray for all Christians persecuted in the Middle East and throughout the world, we can take heart through their witness.  The joy and the fearlessness of these singers is contagious and beautiful.  Take in the English subtitles as you hear gospel truth proclaimed in the Arabic:   “Jesus is risen from the dead, defeating death by death . . .”  What a tribute to the power of Love over hate and death.

Indeed, He is Risen!  Alleluia!

 

 

Political Correctness and the Cult Mindset

My essay in the Federalist today is about Americans’ woeful ignorance of the techniques of brainwashing.  Click here to read:  “Cults in Our Midst:  Patty Hearst and the Brainwashing of America.”  My take is that it’s been exactly 40 years since Patty Hearst stunned the nation by robbing a bank with her radical comrades from “The Symbionese Liberation Army,” two months after they kidnapped and brainwashed her.

They started the way any bully or cult leader pushes an agenda:  by isolating the individual and separating the person from all relationships the aggressor can’t control.   Political correctness depends on this sort of thing.  It’s a program of behavior modification through language control.  It seeks to impose language that vilifies people who don’t conform so that they are separated and isolated from others. (You know the drill:  “bigot,” etc.)

Interestingly, the term “brainwashing” has become politically incorrect.  We should ask ourselves: Why?  The term simply comes from the Chinese/Maoist expression “hse nao” which means to “wash the brain” so that other thoughts can be programmed into it. Is the word politically incorrect because it’s a false concept?  No.  It’s politically incorrect because it is  true.  It’s very real.

If Americans understood the processes and techniques of coercive persuasion, they’d become more immune to them.  Political correctness would lose its hold, just as a magician’s tricks lose their appeal when you see them exposed.

Here are some brief excerpts from my essay, which I hope you’ll read:

In a sense, political correctness, though more subtle, is analogous to the dark closet in which Patty Hearst was isolated, blindfolded, and incessantly propagandized. It serves to silence us and create the conditions in which the arbiters of correctness can tear down the old world view and rebuild it in their image. We’re told being one of them is to be morally superior, on the right side of history. Those who oppose it are labeled, repeatedly and loudly: bigot, racist, homophobe.

In Cults in our Midst, Singer warned that cult techniques “should be studied and revealed so that citizens can be taught countermeasures in order to avoid being exploited by such groups.” She also cautioned: “The psychotechnology of thought reform is not going to go away… Education, information and vigilance are constantly needed if we are to keep us, and our minds, free.”

 

 

Reclaim Your Voice, “Singing in the Rain:” Freedom Through Song Part III

Enforcement of political correctness really amounts to the theft of our voices.   PC creates a climate of fear that causes a lot of folks to remain silent, or to parrot back the PC line.  This in turn feeds the illusion of public opinion approval.  The dictators are under the spotlights, center stage, promoting their lies.  They are completely invested in their own power, so they use others — behind the curtain — to comply with their agendas.  In the process they either squash or co-opt the talents and thoughts of others.  Watch this classic clip from the 1952 movie Singing in the Rain to see something of a metaphor for  this sort of PC bullying.

[Read more…]

Bait and Switch: How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy

“Relationships, Power, and Freedom” is the central theme of this blog.  I really hope you’ll read my article published today in The Federalist because in it I attempt to get right into the intersection of each of these three qualities in our lives.  Click here for the link to my article, “Bait and Switch:  How Same Sex Marriage Ends Family Autonomy.”

Preserving civil marriage is key, because without it the family can no longer exist autonomously and serve as a wall of separation between the individual and the state. Abolishing it would have huge implications for the survival of freedom of association and all of our personal relationships.

[Read more…]

The Softer Side of Show Trials, brought to you by your Friends at Mozilla

When Hollywood folks think of show trials, they automatically relive the McCarthy hearings of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee back in the 1950s.  When a student of Russian history hears the term, she’s apt to think about Stalin’s Show Trials of the 1930’s.  But let’s not go there, right?  Those were nasty affairs that usually ended with executions after perfunctory trials that declared the defendants “enemies of the people.”

There’s a more “civilized and softer” side to the idea of show trials, which was brought to us this week by Mozilla.  It means that when someone carries a belief in his heart that doesn’t meet the approval of the preachers of political correctness, he’s merely forced to resign from his job.  In this case, the person supported the idea — shocking! — that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.  It doesn’t matter that he kept quiet about his beliefs, the thought reformers made a point of “outing” him for his thought crimes. That’s what happened to Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla.  We know he contributed towards Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot measure that defined marriage traditionally.  But we don’t technically know how Eich voted on it because we all still technically have the right to a secret ballot.  Or are you beginning to wonder?

[Read more…]

Nationalizing the Family

Mark Steyn makes some excellent points in this four-minute excerpt from his speech on “The Nationalization of the Family.”

http://www.steynonline.com/6203/the-nationalization-of-the-family

He notes that the takeover of the family was by far the most consequential act of state ownership of the late 20th century.   No question about it.  A faceless bureaucracy is being substituted for the only bonds that can create a healthy society:  family bonds.  Steyn also recognizes that we should grieve far more over the waste of lives than the waste of money by this bureaucratic state.  Amen to that.

But I’d like to elaborate a little here.   The organic family unit — father, mother, child — is really the template for all healthy human relationships.  We all know this in our gut.  Without the security of the human bonding in a family, something great is lost to any human being who’s been deprived of it.  Children end up more isolated and alienated, and they take all of that baggage into adulthood.   People become more detached from others if their sole source of “care giving” is a faceless bureaucracy. In a very real sense, the state can then mediate and dictate all human relationships.  For example, a poor single mother is less likely to get married if she knows she’ll lose state entitlements.  It’s disturbing as we come to realize that nationalizing the family goes hand in hand with abolishing it.

Also, let’s note how the cliques ruling the bureaucracies can’t recognize human potential, creativity, and innovation. Even if they could, they’re hostile to it all.  They squander lives and talent. And they’re in the business of squashing love.

Our only choice, in the end, is for each of us to compete with this machine.  It sounds daunting, but we must find a way to build a culture that reaches out in human love and understanding to anyone at risk of falling victim to the machine, and even those who already are.  I hope to explore in future posts how we might try to do this.

Who am I to you? The State Will Decide

“If We Can Pick our Gender, Can we Pick our Age? Our Race?”  That’s the headline of an article I published in The Federalist today.  Logic requires a “yes” answer for both age and race.  Today the state of Maryland joined 17 others to pass one of those laws that purports to protect “gender identity.”  It’s a dangerous and de-humanizing path.   You can read my essay here:

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/27/if-we-can-pick-our-gender-can-we-pick-our-age-our-race/

Transgender laws are based entirely on self-perceptions.  They don’t permit a common understanding of human reality. Rather, they end up foisting upon everyone a new definition of what it is to be human.  But the rule of law can’t survive these sorts of ambiguities.   The state will enforce acceptance of certain perceptions and punish those who do not recognizing those perceptions.  This will have a profound effect on how the state views — and ultimately dictates — relationships.

We need to resist such laws, especially legislation in Congress like ENDA — which falsely claims to be an “Employment Non-Discrimination Act.”  Because, in the end, it’s all about the state dictating our relationships.

 

Faith of the Whos: Freedom Through Song Part II

whos

Since 1966, an annual TV tradition at Christmastime is Dr. Suess’s beloved animated story “The Grinch Who Stole Christmas.”  Watch what happens after the Grinch steals all of the Christmas stuff from the Whos down in Whoville:

I’m going to digress a little bit.  Bullies always try to control others.  One way to do this is by theft, or by cultivating scarcity.  This is virtually a matter of policy in totalitarian societies run by dictators.  Scarcity breeds discontent.  The idea is that if you take people’s stuff,  they’ll be dependent on you.  Scarcity also divides people so that they can be made to fight like dogs for any scraps.  But that’s not so possible if people are allowed to bond together freely in autonomous families and communities.  When they have the strength of personal relationships based in trust, people learn from one another and pool their resources.  They can build faith, goodwill, and real trust, the best defenses against tyranny.

Singing is a timeless way of spreading that goodwill. When it’s joyful and spontaneous, it stirs the soul and creates an irresistible urge for human fellowship.  That’s why some thugs — like the Taliban in Afghanistan — actually ban singing altogether.  They see it as a threat to their control over others.

The Whos were industrious, happy, prosperous, and friendly.  The Grinch couldn’t stand them and especially hated the sound of their singing on Christmas morning.  So he devised a classic plan:  just steal all of their stuff while pretending to be Santa Claus!  He took the Whos’ food, their presents to one another, their decorations, everything.  Then he looked forward to hearing their sobs as they woke up to the desolation.

But it turned out the Whos had a song in their hearts that couldn’t be suppressed.  As we deal with the tyrannies of everyday life, it’s good to remember this.   Our unique voices, when shared, are the basis of all that we can create, give, and love.  Sharing that song means reaching out and speaking truth in love so that others can discover their voices too.  Even the grinches.

 

Crude Demonization and the Propaganda in “Cosmos”

Did you catch the Sunday night pilot of the new Cosmos series on FOX?  If so, you probably watched with interest an odd cartoon that was injected into it.  The program featured some revisionist history in order to produce a thinly-veiled hit piece on Christians.  You can watch it here.  Take special note at 1:24.  Right smack dab in the center of focus is the Cross of Christ, just below a set of demonically-lit eyes of a church figure.

This is propaganda of the crudest sort, reminiscent of how Stalin’s Soviet Union characterized non-communists, or how the Hutus of Rwanda characterized the Tutsis, or, most famously, how the Third Reich characterized Jews.

 I imagine we’ll see more of this sort of thing in the future, so let’s try to figure out one formula some outlets might use to implement such demonization.

1.)  Take a fascinating topic that captures the imagination of viewers across all age groups.  In this case, space exploration.  Get the US President’s seal of approval

2.)  Invent the story of an obscure martyr, in this case, a church figure who promoted a theological heresy hundreds of years ago and was executed for doing so — Giordano Bruno.

1.       3.)  Win the sympathy of the viewer through twisting facts.  In this case, claim — in error — that the Church as a whole persecuted Bruno for his views on science and his imagination — when the reality was that the personalities running the church at the time went after him for his theological views. 
You can read more about this here and here.

4.)  Then inject a caricature that demonizes anyone associated with the symbol f the cross.  In this case, it’s a cartoon that places the cross right in the center of focus, underneath a pair of demonic eyes so that the viewer will join the producers in demonizing the cross and those who wear it.

Whether or not you agree that this is a formula for demonizing people, it all leads to the same place:  the persecution of targeted groups of people.  Throughout history demonization through caricature has always gone hand-in-hand with oppression:  separating people through smear-by-association.  So whenever we see such things produced by a major network or outlet, we need to ask ourselves a question:  Is the caricature intended to single out a group of people with the direct effect of inspiring blanket fear and hatred of them?  Or is it a more generic “bad guy” that would would find in the context of a well-written drama or storyline?  This hit piece from Cosmos is doubtless of the first category.