Search Results

When I was studying the realities of communism, especially the crimes of Stalin, I concluded that cruelty and terror are inevitable under that system. Not just probable or possible. Inevitable. Built-in. It leads to the kind of barbarism that’s probably impossible to grasp even if you’ve lived in it. As with all totalitarian systems, communism relies on driving people apart by isolating and atomizing them so that they are not able to trust their neighbors or even their family. It relies on a spiral of silence — the fear of speaking truth. Just ponder this observation by Pascal Fontaine who wrote about Cuba in the Black Book of Communism: “The surveillance and denunciation system is so rigorous that family intimacy is almost nonexistent.” The communist system absolutely requires the centralization of power. And since personal relationships get in the way of that power, the State meddles ceaselessly, sowing distrust and ill will, often through enforced scarcity of goods and services,. Think of it as misery with little if any hope for company. And since the people most driven to raw power are also the most ruthless, in a system without checks and balances power usually ends up concentrated into the hands of one strongman. Terror is a given because it’s just too much power in the hands of too few people who are invested in perpetuating their power. Even passive resistance is viewed as a threat. One can only wonder why there has been a revisiting of communism in recent times. Why the apologies? Is it ignorance? Or is it something else? Is there a drive for power, a sense of investment in that system that makes it attractive to some? I’ll explore those questions in future posts. In the meantime, please visit the Global Museum of Communism, a project of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. It’s an amazing interactive website that helps us to never forget the those who died and suffered so much under communist regimes.

If you wonder how the whole issue of genderless marriage took off so fast — from fringe issue to public policy in just a few years — read Doug Mainwaring’s excellent article in today’s American Thinker: “Manufacturing Consent on Same Sex Marriage.” You’ll find in it a fascinating discussion that goes beyond Marketing 101. In fact, you’ll wish that that there was an insightful “Propaganda 101” course readily available to all. What has been happening is as confusing to folks as the current understanding of marriage seems to be. Some of us thought that the public square was for talking through issues that were controversial. Then after we reasoned things through, we’d talk some more just to be sure. We’d argue. We’d debate in a civil society that allowed all views to be heard. We’d vote on public officials or referenda. We’d try to learn. To think independently. And so on . . . Silly us. All the while, “availability cascades” were being tweaked and organized and used to create an illusion of consent for things that seemed implausible, rendering them “plausible” as more and more people were sucked into the spiral of silence that political correctness demands of dissenters. As people feared social ostracism, they complied. What passed for “debate in the public square” was manipulated and rendered predictable. I plan to write more on this subject myself, especially since the frenetic pace of genderless marriage policy provides such an excellent illustration the mechanics of opinion cascades, and the understanding of how fragile they really are. (Doug and I also co-authored a piece on this last year, which you can read here.)

“We have the parts so we will use them.” That’s what Bianca Bowser told Yahoo News about his spouse Nick getting pregnant. Their two biological children, identified as sons named Kai, 3, and Pax, 1, share both Bianca and Nick’s DNA. That’s because Bianca’s sperm fertilized Nick’s egg. That would make Bianca the actual father and Nick the actual mother. But wait! That information is classified! Or hate speech, or something. Right? No, this is the biological truth that Bianca and Nick as representatives of the transgender movement — and self-confessed publicity hounds for the cause — insist that we must reject. The agenda requires that the entire world reject this, which means that if it doesn’t apply to them, then it must not apply to you. Neither Nick nor Bianca have undergone sex reassignment surgery, so their reproductive systems are still intact, though they each must take a lot of hormones to sustain their transgender appearances. They do plan to have surgery done, later on. You can read the whole thing here: “Transgender Parents Speak Out about What Makes a Family.” I’m convinced that the transgender movement is at root a War on Language. I doubt that the ultimate goal of the movement — so driven by raw power — has much if anything to do with equality for transgender individuals. By forcing you to change your understanding of pronoun usage, the transgender project succeeds in undermining any common understanding of human identity, including your own identity as male or female. I refuse to get sucked into this rabbit hole. And I hope you agree. However, I’m fine with name changes. If a man named Richard decides he wishes to be called Emily, I’ll defer and call him Emily. But if Emily then decides I must change the definition of pronouns to suit his self concept, that’s where I draw the line. Because in essence he’s asking everybody else to change their own perception of reality to suit his. This is how cults operate. The first thing a cult leader does is work to destabilize the recruits’ sense of self or self-concept in relation to the world. Indeed, the transgender movement has all the earmarks of a Cult.

When power elites are pushing an agenda, the first step is to silence the opposition. Political correctness is a tool that manipulates the universal human fear of being socially smeared in order to squash dissent. PC begins by teasing out a spiral of silence that causes people to perceive majority approval for an agenda — even when it doesn’t exist — so that they remain silent instead of expressing opposition. But that’s just the first step. PC agendas cannot withstand scrutiny or open debate. They get poor mileage and need lots of fuel. So, at a certain point the silencing of dissent is just not enough to keep the illusion going. That’s when power elites will ratchet it up and enlist your enthusiasm and approval. And it’s mandatory. A fascinating illustration of mandatory enthusiasm is in the clip below from the 1940 movie “The Mortal Storm,” starring Jimmy Stewart and Margaret Sullavan. Begin watching at the 2:00 mark: When faced with this type of cascade of human madness, we have two choices, according to the story: 1. Safety through retreat, which is really a trap, because it only feeds the cascade and makes the problem worse; 2. Courage, which forces us to confront the evil, and allows us a fighting chance in defeating it. Part of the fallout of PC is that it tears apart families and life long friendships. At one point in the movie, the character Freya says to Martin: “You’re the only friend I have left and the only one I can talk to. I’ve never felt so all alone in my life.” And that’s the aim of any power-mongering force: to separate dissenters from any source of support — from friends, from family. To make sure they have no one they can talk to. That message from the “The Mortal Storm” is timeless and urgent. By the way, during the 1930’s Hollywood bowed to pressure from Nazi Germany and avoided any negative portrayals of the Nazis. “The Mortal Storm” was the first time this pact had been breached before US involvement, and it resulted in a German boycott of MGM. (If you’re planning to watch the whole movie, here’s a quickie review of its shortcomings: I wish it was more cohesive and had more natural dialogue in several of the scenes.) Another interesting aside is that after WWII you’d be hard pressed to find an average German who claimed to be a willing member of the Nazi party. It seems the old line about being “on the right side of history” can often serve as a manipulative and empty slogan.

After entry of the US into WWII, Warner Brothers released the classic Casablanca (1942) starring Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. One scene in Casablanca offers a magnificent juxtaposition with the Bavarian pub scene from The Mortal Storm (1940) discussed in the last post. The place is similar: another restaurant– Rick’s Cafe Americain. Also similar is a cast of Nazi officers, stirring up song (this one “Die Wacht am Rhein.”) But the similarities end there, when one man, Victor Laszlo, tells the orchestra to play the “La Marseillaise.” A thrilled and grateful clientele all rise spontaneously and triumphantly, drowning out the Nazis’ song. Watch here: If Laszlo hadn’t done what he did, what then? Chances are everyone would just sit around sulking. Until the Nazis could stir up enough folks to sing along with them to the point that theirs seemed the majority view. Morale would continue to plummet. It’s the little acts of resistance that add up to make the biggest difference. These acts plant seeds in others, creating a cascade effect. Sad to say, it’s the power mongers of the world who seem to know this better than the rest of us do. That’s why they insist on our silence as a way station on their road to total control. So let’s not hide our light.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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? Mark Steyn had a great post about this today, called "Celebrate Conformity." In any case, the real purpose of Eich's public smearing is to warn and threaten anyone else who might go against the PC machine.  That's basically the same purpose of a show trial. The punishment is social isolation.  The reward is having the virtual gun taken from your head -- and pointed at someone else's head.  The instinct is to give in and shut up. But coercive persuasion is pure poison. We must not drink it.  The more we give in to the urge to remain silent or change our views in order to survive socially, the more we feed the Spiral of Silence.  And that's a death spiral for freedom.  It tightens the noose and enslaves us further.   The only antidote is to reach out one on one to others -- starting with those who like you and trust you -- and let them know what you believe.  Even if they don't agree, they need to hear it from you. And those who do agree are so grateful -- and emboldened -- to know they're not alone. If we don't speak up, we can't live free.

“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. Consider that a child who becomes self aware asks: “Where did I come from?” It’s an existential question at its very core. And the most meaningful answer is that the child physically came from a relationship between his mother and his father, both of whom the child knows in a relationship of his or her own. This answer — the relationship — empowers all of us with the security and stability to go out into the world and create all manner of healthy friendships and relationships with others. The push for genderless marriage completely undermines the power of personal relationships by undermining the template for them, which is organic marriage: between one man and one woman. In fact, all of the trend lines reveal that the ultimate destination of “marriage equality” is really the abolition of all civil marriage. If it were abolished, family autonomy and privacy would have to be abolished with it. In the end, we’d all become atomized individuals in the eyes of the state. Powerless, unfree, officially strangers to one another. This excerpt from the Federalist article lists the six indicators that we are headed for the abolition of marriage: We can sort out six developments that indicate we’re on the fast track to abolishing civil marriage. They include: 1) The blueprint for abolishing family, developed by the founder of feminist legal theory, Martha Fineman; 2) support and advocacy of Fineman’s model by facilitators and regulators in the Obama Administration; 3) the statements of prominent LGBT activists themselves, including their 2006 manifesto which in effect established the abolition of marriage as the goal of the same sex marriage movement; 4) the demographic shift to single rather than married households; 5) the growing shift in social climate from marriage equality to marriage hostility; and 6) the recent push to export the LGBT agenda globally, particularly targeting poor and developing nations of Africa. Please read the whole article to get a better picture of how the marriage issue affects our relationships, our power, and our freedom.

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. The plot centers around the arrival of sound to cinema. A major film star from the silent movie era is slated to play in a studio’s first sound picture. The star, Lina Lamont (played by Jean Hagen) has an abrasive voice., She’s also self-absorbed and abusive to others. But since she’s so popular, the studio arranges for an unknown and talented actress and singer — Kathy, played by Deborah Kerr — to dub Lina’s voice. Lina has been nasty to Kathy and has threatened to sue if the studio gives Kathy any credit. The scene above takes place just after the Hollywood premiere of the studio’s new “talking picture” and the theater audience wants Lina to sing for them — in person! So Kathy is told to cover for Lina. She sings behind the curtain, humiliated, while Lina lipsynches under the lights. Lina is stealing and using the voice of Kathy in order to promote her own self-serving agenda. In this sense, the scene is very symbolic of political correctness. Since singing is so connected with expressing what’s in our hearts, the beginning of the scene is disturbing. We see a talented and good person being used and abused as she glorifies an ungrateful and narcissistic prima donna who is lacking in talent. And even though Kathy was singing, her true voice, her identity, was being suppressed. You get the picture. When we can’t identify ourselves and speak truly to what we believe and who we really are, we end up trapped like Kathy. We put ourselves in darkness, behind the curtain, speaking only at the behest of others who use us — or silence us — to promote their own agendas. The end of the scene is filled with poetic justice. Let it remind us that we ought to help one another come out from behind the curtain — to sing out and speak out in the light with our own true voices. And when it seems we’re all alone? Think of it as singing in the rain.