Silently Slipping Away

You don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone.

Did you ever criticize the government?  Maybe the President, maybe a Congressperson, maybe the local dog catcher.  Maybe when you did some folks agreed with you, maybe most folks thought you were nuts.  But you were able to speak your mind.

People in authoritarian regimes do not have that right. There could be no impassioned speeches against wars or for the right to vote, against child abuse and for child labor laws.  In authoritarian regimes one is told what to think and that is the only opinion that is allowed expression.

Prohibitions on Free Speech

In the USSR, Stalin created a law “against terrorist groups and terrorist actions” that was used to prosecute, imprison, execute not just “terrorists” but artists and writers and dissidents – virtually anyone who spoke a word against Stalin and the party power structure.  Section 10 of Article 58 made "propaganda and agitation against the Soviet Union" a triable offence, while section 12 allowed for onlookers to be prosecuted for not reporting instances of section 10. In effect, Article 58 was carte blanche for the secret police to arrest and imprison anyone deemed suspicious, making it useful as a political weapon.

The current Communist Chinese government also has a law that silences speech against the government narrative.  Article 105, paragraph 2 of the 1997 revision of the People's Republic of China's Penal Code states:  "Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years."

In the United States

We, of course, have the First Amendment which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  These words give us the right to form our own opinions and to speak them, even if they are not in line with the government’s narrative.

But, as of February 7, 2022, we also have the National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin issued by our Department of Homeland Security.  While spending much of its time discussing the possibility of violent threats it also includes significant language against speech that counters the government narrative.

The “Summary of Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland” begins by stating that “The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors. These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.”

The document continues with “Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include: 1. The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:  For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.”

Losing Free Speech; Easing into Authoritarianism

I don’t know about you, but to me this sounds eerily similar to the USSR and Chinese documents (see my highlighted language in each).  Its focus is on areas in which the narrative of the Right counters and is often a thorn in the side of the Left’s narrative certainly seems a political weapon.  And we have seen this terrorism before in the collaboration between the White House and Teachers’ Unions to weaponize the DOJ against parents speaking out at school board meetings.

Perhaps the controversy over Joe Rogan on Spotify sparked this HHS document. (FYI, Joe Rogan has a pod cast in which he brings on speakers with a variety of views.  When he had two scientists, including one involved in invention of mRNA technology on and they differed in opinion from the narrative of the White House, attempts were made to cancel Rogan from Spotify, including statement by the White House that Spotify should do so, but Spotify declined, instead taking a stand for Free Speech.) Perhaps more generally the many assertions against Leftist narratives brought this on.

Whatever prompted this latest attempt to silence free speech, it is clear that the position of our current administration, spoken here by DHS, is not that different from the authoritarian rules summarized above.  Speak out in contradiction of the government, even simply disagree, and you are a terrorist.  Indeed, under a broad reading of the above, as I write these words I am acting as a terrorist.  Many of my blog posts would be considered terrorism.

But America is not the USSR and is not Communist China (even if we are told not to speak out against China and our government does not stand against its atrocities including genocide against the Uyghur people). 

America holds faith in the free marketplace of ideas (or at least it did until the Leftists took power).  The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.  It is the basis of free speech and of our Constitutional right to that speech.

Free speech can be uncomfortable.  People disagree; people contradict one another; people point out fallacies in one another’s arguments and positions; passion sometimes leads to less than kind language.  But this lively debate also inspires new thought and betterment of existing policies.  It is what allows improvement and forward movement, whether it is in a science lab leading to a new discovery or in the world of politics leading to societal improvement, improved laws, and a better world.

Only narrow-minded autocrats try to silence oppositional speech.  Those who believe they are somehow superior and therefore deserve power over others also think that they should be able to control every aspect of your life, including your thoughts.

The Soviet government made propaganda and agitation against the Soviet Union a triable offense.  The Communist Chinese require imprisonment for “slander or encouragement of subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system.” 

Our government finds our right to free speech to be terroristic and the exercise of that right to be terrorism when it contradicts the administration’s narrative.  And our freedom to speak against that view will slip away if we continue in silence to ignore our rights and this administration’s attempts to silence them. 

But, hey, those of you that are upset by the discord within this country can rest assured that under an authoritarian regime, all such discord will be silenced.  And you won’t realize what you had until it’s gone.

 

Ostrich or Bolshevik?

I find it difficult to understand how many Americans still support President Biden and his Leftist agenda.  I guess they must be either ostriches or Bolsheviks.

Ostriches, with their heads in the sand, are unaware of the obvious going on around them which include, but are certainly not limited to, the following examples: 

• Suppression of free speech –  Testifying at a House hearing yesterday our Attorney General acknowledged during questioning that he, the DOJ, and the President consulted only with the teacher’s union and then put forth the memo requested by the union that essentially condemns parents who speak up at a school board meeting in opposition to the union policies and especially to the teaching of the racist CRT. The idea that such concerned parents might be called domestic terrorists certainly has a chilling effect on their ability to speak out no matter how much the AG tries to talk his way around it.
• Intimidation and cancelling of ideas not aligned with the Left – Includes inconsistent application of laws, demands that people embrace – not just tolerate - ideas (including such things as gender fluidity or necessity of 2-year-olds wearing masks) that are not supported by science or other civil necessity.
• Loss of privacy – the White House, allegedly to prevent IRS fraud by the rich, wants to have access to bank accounts with any transaction of over $600. Most people who work and have paychecks deposited, or who pay a mortgage will have transactions of that amount on a monthly basis and hence have their personal financial transactions open for government inspection.
• Economic disasters – Job reports falling well below expectations, gas prices at a seven-year high, inflation at a 30-year high and continuing to rise, food prices up along with costs of housing, energy, and other essentials, interest rates likely to increase. The economy is failing, and the middle class are the ones who will suffer most from its failure.
• Supply chain problems – meanwhile the Secretary of Transportation is on leave since August and has not left a specified point person in charge.
• International standing – plummeting. The Afghanistan pullout was a complete embarrassment and a huge hit to America’s reputation. China outpacing us with development and successful test of a hypersonic missile (made in part using US technology).
• Military and law enforcement – Afghanistan. Disrespect for military and police; focus on inclusion and equity rather than readiness
• Coronavirus – Cases continue to rise. Mandates eviscerate the idea of personal choice when the science behind vaccine and covid is still being discovered. Meanwhile Biden policies and mandates result in firing of essential workers, leaving them without jobs, pensions, etc, and the people whom they serve without service.
• The border – Migrant encounters at the border are at a 21 year high. The Biden administration has effectively created open borders. Children are living in overcrowded cages and are flown around the country in the middle of the night. Drug and child trafficking are up. Single adult males account for about 2/3 of the crossings. Migrants are released into the interior with only a request that they return for a hearing. The President says he has been too busy to visit the border, yet he has taken any number of vacations.
• Corruption and lack of transparency – run rampant in this White House. Questions are not answered or are answered with falsehoods. Investigations of possible corruption or unethical behavior are suppressed. Even the Attorney General himself refused to have evaluated the ethics of his involvement in the threat to parents about opposing CRT at school boards despite his association via son-in-law with a firm that benefits significantly from schools using CRT.
• Biden and his administration – blame everyone else for the problems, refusing to take responsibility for anything. Biden ignores the idea of rule of law when he does such things as judge border agents guilty when accused of whipping illegal border crossers, even when the evidence shows it didn’t happen. The Administration becomes more and more authoritarian every day. And, like other authoritarian governments, while they make many rules to govern every aspect of citizen’s lives, those rules are not applied to themselves. Also, like most authoritarian governments, they are intent upon silencing any opposition to their policies and their power.

Or Bolshevik?  If you are aware of the above and the many other problematic and authoritarian activities of this administration, but continue to support Biden’s policies, then perhaps you are a Bolshevik. 

Bolshevism (from Bolshevik) is a revolutionary Marxist current of political thought and political regime associated with the formation of a rigidly centralized, cohesive and disciplined party of social revolution, focused on overthrowing the existing capitalist state system, seizing power and establishing the "dictatorship of the proletariat".  It originally referred to Russian communists, but now the term is used more generally for those who support such views and policies.

I find it hard not to characterize most of the activity of Biden and the Left as intent upon overthrowing and totally changing what we call America.  Thus, those who support such activity can easily be termed Bolsheviks.

Actually, Russian President Vladimir Putin put it well earlier this week in a speech to the International Valdai Discussion Group in Sochi.  Whatever else you may think of Putin, as former KGB he understands revolution, communism, and communist suppression.  Here are some of the more relevant parts of his speech:

The advocates of so-called ‘social progress’ believe they are introducing humanity to some kind of a new and better consciousness. Godspeed, hoist the flags as we say, go right ahead. The only thing that I want to say now is that their prescriptions are not new at all. It may come as a surprise to some people, but Russia has been there already. After the 1917 revolution, the Bolsheviks, relying on the dogmas of Marx and Engels, also said that they would change existing ways and customs and not just political and economic ones, but the very notion of human morality and the foundations of a healthy society. The destruction of age-old values, religion and relations between people, up to and including the total rejection of family (we had that, too), encouragement to inform on loved ones – all this was proclaimed progress and, by the way, was widely supported around the world back then and was quite fashionable, same as today. By the way, the Bolsheviks were absolutely intolerant of opinions other than theirs.

 

This, I believe, should call to mind some of what we are witnessing now. Looking at what is happening in a number of Western countries, we are amazed to see the domestic practices, which we, fortunately, have left, I hope, in the distant past. The fight for equality and against discrimination has turned into aggressive dogmatism bordering on absurdity, when the works of the great authors of the past – such as Shakespeare – are no longer taught at schools or universities, because their ideas are believed to be backward. The classics are declared backward and ignorant of the importance of gender or race. In Hollywood memos are distributed about proper storytelling and how many characters of what colour or gender should be in a movie. This is even worse than the agitprop department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

 

Countering acts of racism is a necessary and noble cause, but the new ‘cancel culture’ has turned it into ‘reverse discrimination’ that is, reverse racism. The obsessive emphasis on race is further dividing people, when the real fighters for civil rights dreamed precisely about erasing differences and refusing to divide people by skin colour. . . .

 

In a number of Western countries, the debate over men’s and women’s rights has turned into a perfect phantasmagoria. Look, beware of going where the Bolsheviks once planned to go – not only communalising chickens, but also communalising women. One more step and you will be there.

 

Zealots of these new approaches even go so far as to want to abolish these concepts altogether. Anyone who dares mention that men and women actually exist, which is a biological fact, risk being ostracised. “Parent number one” and “parent number two,” “'birthing parent” instead of “mother,” and “human milk” replacing “breastmilk” because it might upset the people who are unsure about their own gender. I repeat, this is nothing new; in the 1920s, the so-called Soviet Kulturtraegers also invented some newspeak believing they were creating a new consciousness and changing values that way. And, as I have already said, they made such a mess it still makes one shudder at times.

. . . .

Again, for us in Russia, these are not some speculative postulates, but lessons from our difficult and sometimes tragic history. The cost of ill-conceived social experiments is sometimes beyond estimation. Such actions can destroy not only the material, but also the spiritual foundations of human existence, leaving behind moral wreckage where nothing can be built to replace it for a long time.

I do encourage you to read the entire speech which can be found here:  LINK  

I wonder if in 1917 the Russian ostriches and Bolsheviks knew what they were in for in the “brave new world” they either were creating or allowing to happen via their indifference.  The Bolshevik dream gave them Stalin’s reign of terror and decades of living with hunger, hardship, and fear in the fully government-controlled society.  They lived without freedom until, even when communism fell, they found they had forgotten how to be free.

Our Bolsheviks actively work towards a complete reconfiguration of America.  But their touted new world is not a new idea and it is more frightening than enlightened.  Nonetheless, their actions and support for Leftist policy tells us this is what they indeed seek to create.

But our ostriches, with heads lost in the sand, are supporting this revolution as well.  If the ostriches would raise their heads and look around, they might see what is really happening and hopefully speak out against it.  Indifference is a vote and a win for the Left and ultimately for the tragedies and horrors that come with their new world order.

Turns Out, I Wasn’t Buying It Even Then

In my last post I included Solzhenitsyn’s criticisms of the idea of situation ethics or relative morality.  When writing that post I was put in mind of my having read Joeseph Fletcher’s book “Situation Ethics: The New Morality” for a sociology class.  That would have been in the late 60s (the copyright date is 1966).  My memories were that I was swayed by the arguments in that book to look at my views of morality differently.  Turns out I actually still have my original copy (price on cover: $1.95) with my notes from the time.

My notes throughout the book reveal that I seem to have open mindedly considered as well as questioned the arguments and theses of the book, but that in the end I wasn’t sold.  Indeed, I seem to have at least intuited the criticisms spoken by Solzhenitsyn 5 or 10 years later.  The inside cover includes my handwritten comment that reads as follows:

whole book, & idea appears as just a way of rationalizing your sins, and “is trying to get out of it.”

makes us all out to be gods, who can choose to take a life for example, but we aren’t and we can’t.

Seems very slanted.  Only uses a very few Biblical examples over and over.

I don’t recall myself as being that perceptive.  But maybe it takes one looking back with later experience and history to see what one actually knew in the past.  The fact that my memory was that I had a fairly positive and transformative reaction to the book when I studied it is telling as to how the book and this new philosophy of relativism must have taken hold within our culture. 

Now, looking back with what I know and what I see around me today, I find the book truly frightening.  I see how right Solzhenitsyn was when he noted that the Communist ideology of relative (or class and identity) morality was a successful tool in its (and today’s Leftist Progressive ideology) anti-humanity crusade to gain power only for itself and gain the ability to fully manipulate the rest of us.

THE LURE OF SITUATIONAL MORALITY

The back of my copy of Situation Ethics touts it as “a manifesto of individual freedom and individual responsibility, elaborated within an ethic of love, which extricates modern man from rigid, archaic rules and codes.”

That was the 60s.  Think how enlightened that sounded.  “Individual freedom and individual responsibility”: isn’t that what people of the 60s were discovering – their ability to be themselves, to not conform and be like everyone else?  “Elaborated within an ethic of love”:  love one another was a sound and phrase of the times, how could that be bad?  And with these positive slogans we will “extricate modern man from rigid, archaic rules and codes”:  those would be the absolutes, the good and evil that served us well since civilized time began, the absolutes whose removal, Solzhenitsyn notes, leave us with nothing but the manipulation of one by another.

On page 56 of the book one finds a summary of the six propositions on which its philosophy of situation ethics rests: “The first one pins down the nature of value.  The second reduces all values to love.   The third equates love and justice.  The fourth frees love from sentimentality.  The fifth states the relation between means and ends.  The sixth authenticates every decision within its own content.” 

According to the author, “The new morality, situation ethics, declares that anything and everything is right or wrong, according to the situation.”  The author declares this new morality is not new, but is Bible-based and, like so many false prophets before and after him, he takes selected quotes from the Bible out of context to justify his philosophy that essentially comes down to:  do what feels good for you – if it feels good, it’s OK.

WHERE DID IT LEAD US

I think that in the 60s most who considered it didn’t notice the possible consequences of what embracing situational or relative morality might mean.  It is, I believe, a part of the lives of most of us today, and the Left has fully embraced it.

I think most everyone today will ignore otherwise rigid rules in at least some situations.  And probably people have always done this to some extent (is there anyone who has never told “a little white lie”?). 

But when there are absolute rules of right and wrong, good and evil, the breaking of these rules is less prevalent and is accompanied by some sort of guilt and understanding of one’s own wrongdoing.  When those “rigid” rules are gone one is ultimately left to do whatever one wants, regardless of what may be right or wrong for others.

Today, beyond more prevalent acceptance of excusing rule breaking in some circumstances, there are those who seem to believe that there really are no rules – they truly believe that a situation itself is the governing body in all circumstances. 

How else would we find people justifying theft and robbery (because they are just taking what they need), justifying the killing of police (because they are allegedly systemically racist), justifying violent riots called protests when they claim to serve a popular cause, even when they hurt or kill innocent bystanders, businesses, and government buildings (BLM riots after Floyd killing) but demanding severe punishment, even death to those whose protests violated the perimeter of the Capital building for a cause out of favor with the Left?

How else would we find people justifying the silencing of opposing viewpoints that they find uncomfortable, the disinviting of conservative speakers to college campuses because their views are offensive to Left-leaning students and faculty, the justification of harassing, namecalling, and sometimes physically attacking individuals who speak out in opposition to Leftist causes (most recently those who oppose CRT)? 

How else would we find the entertainment business and the elite and progressive individuals who profit from it justifying a daily diet of “entertainment” that sexualizes women and children while then acting as if they are horrified when someone whose politics are contrary to theirs commits even the slightest “MeToo” violation?

How else would we find the Left asserting its support for women’s rights and equal opportunity, then undermining those assertions when a biological male wants to compete as a female?   

How else would we find people believing that they can claim to be a devout follower of Catholicism yet be pro-abortion (a mortal sin in that faith) and demand they still be allowed to participate in the holy eucharist which requires adherence to the Catholic liturgy?

How else would we have a President requesting that social media censor and ban any posting that does not speak the truth, yet giving no criteria for what is “truth” or who will decide if a posting meets it, resulting, for example, in the idea that any suggestion that the Wuhan Virus came from the Wuhan lab should have been banned as untruthful, even though that now is the prevalent scientific theory?  How can science and humanity progress if no one is allowed to question or to present alternate ideas and theories?

THE RESULT OF EMBRACING RELATIVE MORALITY IS NOT PRETTY AND IT IS ANTI-HUMANITY

The above list could go on and on.  It includes just some of the examples of situation ethics in action that immediately come to mind.  I am sure every reader of this blog can think of many others.

We are destroying ourselves while believing that we have raised ourselves to some higher level of love.  Self-love seems to be the guiding principle – open any lifestyle magazine, any Sunday supplement, any self-help blog, any TV morning-show type supplement and you will hear about the importance of “self-care.”    That is where situational morality has taken us – to place the self as a god and the center of one’s universe. 

That’s fine if you live alone on some mountain top, but when two or more people come together who believe the situation and their feelings govern all even to the extent of justifying murder of the other, someone is going to have to determine whose self-love is superior. 

Once people have been manipulated into giving up absolute moral values, they need someone in power to decide what is OK in this or that situation.  That is where the progressive Leftist philosophy comes in.  They believe they can and should decide for each and every one of us, not because they know or care what is best, but because their philosophy requires and entitles them to do so.  They will take away humanity and replace it with manipulation and indifference.  As Solzhenitsyn so aptly noted, their goal is to destroy our social order.  The back cover of the Situation Ethics book essentially admits that as its intent.

My 1960s notes on Situation Ethics were more accurate than I understood at the time. I didn’t buy into it then, even though I thought I had.  Perhaps you didn’t buy into Situation Ethics either when you were first introduced.  But when there is what Solzhenitsyn calls a “constant dinning” and what we would today call propaganda with a daily barrage of one viewpoint taught from almost birth, it is easy to lose what one knows to be true and to buy into what we inherently know to be a mistake.   

We are not gods and relative morality, no matter how honorable and humane and even holy it may sound, is nothing more than a way to destroy the human essence and individuality and replace it with an ugly and oppressive power wielded by an elite and selfish few.  Each one of us who has let this destructive situation ethics into our lives needs to exorcise it immediately.

Dumbing Down in the Name of Equity

Education.  It used to be a place where students would not only gain instruction in both general and specific topics.  It was also most importantly where students learned to question and to reason – to do the critical thinking that is necessary not only to expand one’s own mind and reach one’s own potential but is also necessary to understand others in society and to work together with those others to move society and mankind forward.

That is not education today.  Today we only allow students to learn that which meets the approval of a woke culture under its false promise of “equity”.  Questioning what is taught is frowned upon if not overtly disallowed.  No room for new or independent thoughts.  No tolerance for diverse views.

Consider the following examples (just a few of many available): 

·        A Virginia school district has cancelled Dr. Seuss for “racial undertones.”

·        Boston Public Schools are suspending Advanced classes because too many students in them are White or Asian (no evidence that the student makeup is based on any sort of discrimination).

·        English teachers across the country have cancelled Shakespeare as well as Greek classics because of “racism, homophobia, classism.”

·        Tom Sawyer has been cancelled due to racism.

·        Schools regularly condemn, punish, expel students for expressing un-approved views such as anti-abortion beliefs, Christian beliefs, conservative beliefs.  Students are sent home for wearing patriotic clothing displaying such things as the American flag.  A student who called conservative Black spokesperson Candace Owens a “Black trailblazer” was subjected to a schoolwide email condemning the student as racist.

·        The names “Abraham Lincoln” and “George Washington” have been removed from schools in California.

·        Schools are replacing traditional American history with the 1619 Project curriculum.  Written not by history scholars but by biased journalists, the 1619 curriculum “aims to reframe the country's history by placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of Black Americans at the very center of the United States' national narrative.”  It teaches that our entire country is based on a hatred of Whites toward Blacks.  It denounces the actual proven and factual history of our country as false and racist.  The premises of the 1619 Project have been shown to be erroneous.

·        More generally history instruction has taken a turn whereby America is seen to be an evil creation of White supremacists.  Students learn they should have no pride in their country.  White students are told they should be ashamed of their whiteness and feel guilt simply because they are White.

·        Critical Race Theory training, something that is notably both racist and inaccurate, is also a central part of public-school curriculums.  It focuses on instilling the belief that Whites are racist and that White supremacy is a continuing and systemic problem that cause a power imbalance and a subjugation of Blacks.  Basically, it teaches people of color to hate whites and teaches Whites to feel guilty and ashamed of who they are.

·        Teachers and professors who speak about differing perspectives or encourage students to discuss varying views on a topic are often censured or fired.

·        The hard sciences are not excused from the wokeness of the cancel culture.  Math has recently been accused of promoting White supremacy; demanding showing of work (thinking) or demanding correct answers is by some educators considered to be racist. 

·        Similarly, there are proper viewpoints that students are instructed to take about a variety of scientific theories.  Consider global warming:  while there are many theories about causes, effects, solutions, etc., many students are taught only the perspective of the Left-Green New Deal advocates while being told that questioning it or considering other perspectives is just plain wrong.  Science does not progress when it cannot be questioned just as the human mind does not grow when it cannot question.

·        Beyond the academics, the cancel culture reaches into extracurricular and other activities associated with education.  Students are taught that biological sex is subservient to gender identity.  Students are taught sexual concepts that are not scientifically accurate as young as kindergarten and are encouraged to choose and change their gender at will and without parental consent or even parental knowledge.

·        Women’s and girls sports currently are being eviscerated by the mandate that biological males are allowed to compete as women.  This essentially destroys the fair playing field and places women in a very real no-win situation – a situation that is both demeaning and destructive to their motivation.

These are just a few of the things that are going on in our educational institutions today.  This is happening at the behest of the Left and the woke and with the full blessing and assistance of the Biden Administration. 

This is a travesty, a tragedy, and simply unfair to the minds and souls of our young.  By not teaching students to think and reason, and by denying to those who can the opportunity to excel, we are dumbing down our educational system, our students, and in the end our entire country.

Education is supposed to be “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general or particular knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.”  This definition includes what I believe is the most important thing that any educational system or process can teach: the powers of reasoning and judgment, better known as critical thinking.  It is in that area that I believe the majority of educational systems in this country are utter failures. 

Today’s educational model does not teach critical thinking; moreover, it does not allow it.   Too often students are discouraged from questioning.  They are fed subject matter material, told to accept it, learn it, prove they heard what they were told by regurgitating in on tests.  Any aspect of critical thinking has been replaced by instilling a specific Leftist agenda and value system into the minds of our young. 

Students need to be exposed to more than one viewpoint, to alternate ideas, diverse authors, differing theories.  They need to be taught to solve problems, not just accept answers lectured to them.  They need to be taught how to analyze and assimilate facts and theories and viewpoints in order to discover and support their own conclusions. 

By not teaching or allowing students to question the information they are given, schools today deny the students the raw materials from which they could discover the joy of critical thinking and use it to realize their own full potential.  Not only does this not raise their thinking beyond a very basic level, it also creates the perfect environment for instilling minds with propaganda rather than knowledge.

The ability to question is necessary to preserve the freedoms of democracy.  Without questioning, when questions and diverse ideas are denied, democracy itself is being denied.

Just Another Drop in the Bucket

In an unprecedented action the House voted to remove Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from her committees.  Those committees include the Committee on Education and Labor and the House Budget Committee.  Not only does this remove her (and hence her constituents’) voice on those committees; it also changes the balance of power (favorably for the Left) on those committees.

Before she was elected to Congress, Rep. Greene, on social media, posted or “liked” some alleged violent statements and some alleged conspiracy theories.  Her constituents knew this and yet they voted for her.  They wanted her voice to represent them in Congress including on committees.  Yet, the majority of her Congressional colleagues (mostly Democrat) did not like her views and so voted to relieve her of her committee assignments, effectively silencing not just her voice, but the voice of her constituents as well.

This action invites any majority to simply remove voices that do not support their own. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

This is not what an America that tolerates and appreciates diverse views does. This is what a government ruled by people who believe their view should be the only view does.  This is what a totalitarian regime does.

If you are not outraged, you have no idea what America or democracy or our democratic republic is all about.  This has nothing to do with your personal beliefs.  It has to do with accepting the silencing of voices that those in power do not like. 

This is yet one more notch in the massive silencing that is going on and that I addressed in my more lengthy post yesterday.  It may seem to you like just a drop in the bucket, nothing to get worked up over.  But when that bucket is full, it will hold every drop of the freedoms that Americans now enjoy.  And those in power, not the people, will hold that bucket.  They can toss it out, down the drain, and likely will before they ever let you drink from it again.

                                                       

The Silence is Deafening

 Actually, the silence has been deafening for the last 4 years, and perhaps the 8 before that.  So to what silence am I referring?  The silence of truth and the failure to acknowledge hypocrisy.  And the silence of those who have been intimidated and are afraid to speak. 

Let’s start with today and work backwards.  Actually, let’s start with Biden’s call for Unity.

When Biden called for Unity, nearly every MSM publication had an identical headline:  Time to Heal.  (That the headlines were so identical suggests that the press is not as independent as it may claim). 

Just days after that headline, a large group of Trump supporters marched peacefully in DC for honest and fair elections. 

There is no question that the march was peaceful.  But, as the march ended and evening descended, Leftist groups including Antifa and BLM (both supporters of Biden and Democrats) began violent attacks on those peaceful supporters, including elderly, families, and children.  Their stated purpose was to silence and cancel those holding views that are pro-Trump, pro-honest elections, pro-fact.

Did the MSM report this?  No.  Or when they did it was just something like: “Left and Right engaged in some conflict” or simply “The march was marred by conflict.”  Certainly no coordinated headlines as in Biden’s call for unity (or perhaps the coordination was simply not to report).  There was silence.

Did Biden condemn the violence propounded by his supporters?  No.  He ignored it completely.  Silence.   [Update: Late today a Biden spokesperson stated that "President-elect Biden continues to denounce all acts of violence" but did not name Antifa or BLM, the perpetrators of the violence against the marchers this past weekend. I do not see this as any sort of real condemnation of the divisive acts by the Left, but rather it continues the silence that is inconsistent with the call for unity.]

Did Biden’s voters who had told us they voted for him because he would bring civility and unite us say that this was not what they voted for?  No.  Silence.

This is not only the height of hypocrisy.  It tells me that in the minds of Biden and the Left that “Unity” means we all must hold our tongues and not speak if we disagree with them.  That is not America or the democracy or free speech that is our American Right.  This is an America without tolerance and where unapproved voices are silenced.

And it is not just the “unity” lie.  The hypocrisy is everywhere.  Before the election there was silence on Biden’s likely use of his office as VP to further his son’s financial benefits with Ukraine.  There was the ignoring of the charges of sexual harassment (quite a contrast to the way the Left treated the false charges against Justice Kavanaugh!).  There is the fact that Biden’s cancer foundation does virtually nothing with the money it raises except pay salaries to its employees.  All met with media silence.  Anyone who brought forth the actual evidence of these things was ostracized as some sort of nut.  Inconvenient facts – silenced.

But let’s look at the days post-election.  Besides the false unity appeal, we have seen several lies pass Joe Biden’s mouth, with no acknowledgement of that from his supporters who have been eager not only to point out every actual misstatement by the President, but even to make up many more.

Joe Biden told us during the debates that he would not declare victory until the election results were certified.  He lied.  He promised a middle of the road, not far left-wing administration, but look at his appointments thus far and projected ones – many far left, proponents of socialism, etc.  He lied.  Those who try to raise these and other lies are silenced; the press does not report them.  Silence.

But Biden is not alone in his lies.  He has the media at his back.  How many times has the media, in reporting that Donald Trump has failed to concede, told us there is no evidence of fraud.  Yet there are hundreds of pages of affidavits from poll workers, along with piles of credible evidence suggesting there are also piles of illegal votes that were counted.  That is not reported.  Silence.

No, the result of this election, declared by the media (who now seems to be running the country), is unlikely to change.  But that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to fraud, silence even the suggestion that it occurred, and silence any attempt to investigate so that it does not again occur.

In an essay, the whole of which is well worth reading, Caroline Glick states:

“If we learned nothing else from the election campaign and its aftermath, we learned American democracy is in crisis.

The media is the first force responsible for this crisis. For the past four years, all major U.S. television networks and national newspapers have dedicated themselves not to reporting news, but to defining the boundaries of acceptable public discourse. Big Tech firms—Facebook, Google and Twitter, in particular, having amassed powers the KGB could only have dreamed of—serve as the enforcers of those boundaries.”             

Entire article can be found here LINK 

I come back to my previous blog about the Nice vote.  The media convinced many that Biden would bring us nice – civil discourse in which we would all get along.  They believed the media propaganda that they could trust Joe and he would simply wave his magic wand and we would all get along.  They voted for that in their naïve belief that the job of a president is creating national civility rather than the actual domestic and foreign duties of a president.  No one corrected their misperceptions.  Silence.

But, regardless of what those nice voters thought, what this weekend march and Leftest violence shows us is that in the minds of the left and its handmaiden media, getting along simply means allowing only one voice. That is the worst kind of silence.

The nice voters and the naïve voters failed by blindly trusting the media.  Ms. Glick also writes:

“Nearly all the stories about Trump and his supporters have been negative for the past four years. Consequently, while most Americans never heard that Trump conceived and implemented an entirely new foreign policy doctrine that has met more success than any adopted since the end of the Cold War, all Americans know that the media expect them to believe Trump is a racist. They know that the media expect right-thinking Americans to hate Trump and his supporters, and admire his opponents, from Nancy Pelosi to Black Lives Matter (BLM).”

I would add to this that nearly all the stories about President Obama were positive and we see the same approach being taken toward Biden.  The press does not report the negative, and actually, most of the positive is not hard-hitting journalism, but fluff – for example, what pets Joe will bring to the White House – fluff about fluff.  Silence on real facts of real substance.

Yet too many have been silenced into thinking that if they do not hold the voice that the media instructs there is something wrong with them.  They are afraid to speak out, to even think or question what the media, the voice of the Left, tells them.  They are silenced, and the silence is indeed deafening. 

But more than deafening, is the sad truth that without critical thought and questioning, without voicing or hearing opposing viewpoints, eventually those viewpoints cease to exist.  With the silencing if different voices comes the destruction of the individual mind.  Tolerance of opposing views, what used to be referred to as the Loyal Opposition, is an essential piece of democracy.  Yet the Left is doing its best to silence that, and Biden seems inclined to just stand by and let them.

I turn again to Caroline Glick (and again I encourage everyone to read her entire article):

“The consequences of this media and Big Tech tyranny are disastrous for the health of American democracy. Americans know they are expected to act like the citizens of the totalitarian regime in the Soviet Union. The media will tell them what they can say, and social media will enforce the media's dictates.  And like the denizens of the USSR, Americans haven't stopped thinking as a result of this tyranny. They have just stopped telling people what they think. 

“The media's abandonment of journalism and their hatred of half of American society, as well as the Democrats' embrace of a totalitarian theory of race and American secular sin as an organizing principle, are unmooring America from its democratic, pluralistic anchors. American society is moving into a post-democratic reality. And if action isn't taken to restore those anchors, American society as a whole will suffer.”

I actually fear it may be worse – I fear that too many Americans have indeed just stopped thinking.  They seem to find it easier to just accept.  Do as told, think as told, say as told.  Just shuffle along without any brain and ultimately without any soul. 

Americans, all Americans, need to think if this is where they really want to go.  If not, they need to once again not only start thinking, but start questioning.  And most importantly, they need to start speaking. 

The fear of speaking may be great – you may lose friends, you may be outcast, you may be laughed at, you may even be attacked.  But anyone who wishes to enjoy the many benefits of such traditional American things as freedom of thought and speech and assembly and religion, who believes that tolerance of alternate views, even those with which one strongly disagrees, is a good thing and a healthy thing for democracy, those people need to speak out.

The silence needs to end – that is the action that is necessary to restore the anchors of our American democracy.  From Joe Biden who promised us something different and who refuses to speak out for tolerance and truth, and from the voters who voted for civility but are now being betrayed not only by breaches of campaign promises, but by acceptance of violence against opposition speech.  

But the silence from those who are still thinking and questioning but are not speaking, that is the most dangerous silence of all.  No one should tolerate their voice being silenced.  Rather than silence, we need to hear the cacophony of the many individual and diverse views that exist in America.

 

Question Three

 This is the third in a series of questions to consider before casting your vote this November.  Once again let me state that I am not registered with any party, but as an independent thinker and voter I truly believe that this may be one of the most important elections of our lifetime.  I hope that everyone gives it the serious consideration that it deserves.

Is intolerance of unpopular ideas (not actions) ever OK, and if so, to what extent can that intolerance be expressed?

Intolerance is the reverse of tolerance.  Tolerance is the willingness to allow the existence of opinions with which one does not agree.  Hence, intolerance is the unwillingness or refusal to respect or allow the existence of opinions or beliefs contrary to one's own.

The question is a difficult question.  When ideas conflict with one’s own, while one may be curious, it is also easy to become intolerant, especially of distasteful ideas.   No one wants to hear hurtful or repugnant words, racial, ethnic, or religious epithets, or other generally unaccepted views.   We would like to put a stop to hateful, and painful pronouncements.  But the difficulty here is that the inclination to silence offensive views directly implicates our First Amendment.

The First Amendment envisions a country of tolerance in which there is a free and open marketplace of ideas.  This marketplace educates us.  It may cause us to strengthen our own ideas, alter them, or improve them.  Most importantly, when speech is not suppressed, thought cannot be controlled or limited.

Tolerance and the free interchange of ideas also prohibits the suppression so necessary to a dictatorship.  One of the first things that Lenin did following his Russian revolution was to end all opposition by ending freedom of speech and the press and by instilling in the people a complete fear of speaking dissenting ideas.  Communism also denied the freedom to practice one’s religion.  There was complete intolerance of any thought, speech, or idea that did not conform to the State.

Tolerance does not mean or require acceptance of the other view.  But lack of tolerance is a demand that all think as you do.  Note that I am not talking about tolerance of actions which society, through the legislative process, has agreed are not tolerable - things like DWI, murder, rape, and many other crimes against persons or property.  I am talking about a person who has ideas with which others do not agree.  Is intolerance (the suppression of the existence) of those ideas or speech about them ever OK?  If yes, then when?  And what are the consequences of answering “yes”?

Distinguish here the emotion of disagreeing with or not wanting to hear or associate with a particular idea as opposed to actual intolerance (suppression) of that idea.    One can always walk away from an unpleasant idea or one can argue against it.  Argument signals disagreement with, not intolerance of an idea.  If the argument is civilized, everyone will learn because the differing ideas are all brought to the marketplace.  Such disagreement is not intolerance but rather a way of being tolerant of and perhaps understanding the ideas of others. 

The intolerant attempt to silence unwelcome views is often the result of fear or insecurity on the part of the intolerant one, perhaps because their intolerance is an attempt to silence all opposition, or perhaps because they simply do not understand the words of others that they have adopted as their own and thus feel threatened when “their” ideas are questioned.

In the current climate of heated political debate, both sides often accuse the other of intolerance.   But an actual review of the behavior of both sides seems to indicate far more coordinated attempts at actual suppression of ideas and speech on the part of the Left than by the Right.  This makes sense when one considers that the Left is aiming toward a complete remaking of America in a socialist mode.  Socialism cannot tolerate dissent as those in power decide what is “right” for everyone.

A free marketplace of ideas does not coordinate well with the Left’s plans for this country.  Tolerance of opposing views is not acceptable to the Left.  They will not be tolerant of those who disagree, and those who disagree must not simply tolerate the Left’s views, but actually accept them.  Their methods of being intolerant, of silencing all dissent, are many.

People will be called racist, sexist, etc. if they disagree with the Left’s agenda.  This is one method of silencing dissenting views.  Another is to file lawsuits designed to to force others to conform their views to that of the Left, for example aiming to force bakers and florists who, for religious reasons, decline services to gay weddings. 

The Left will attack people for wearing a Trump MAGA hat.  They not only ban Right-leaning speakers from campuses, but also at times assault them.  Having made the decision that intolerance of “wrong” views is acceptable, the Left seems to have concluded that whatever means necessary to silence the disapproved view is acceptable, even the use of violence.

The Left has no problem proclaiming what speech is and is not allowed.  We now have a list of words, phrases, and questions that are not allowed to be spoken about the Democrat VP candidate. 

Yes, an actual memo went out from a group of Democrats to media telling them how they are “allowed” to cover Kamala.  Any criticism will be considered racist and sexist.  Hence, if you say she seems like an angry woman you are speaking a racist code about her.  The Democrats love codes – so often when someone speaks something they do not like, they will assert that the word or phrase is code for racism or sexism or white supremacism or whatever negative -ism fits the context.

The problem with intolerance is that it silences dissent.  It allows the one doing the silencing to eliminate any questioning of, and discussion about the approved or tolerated views.  Being aggressively intolerant of opposing thoughts really has the same effect as Lenin’s secret police.  Eventually it will instill enough fear that others will stop even attempting to voice those ideas.  The hope of the intolerant and the requirement of the socialist is that ultimately everyone will fully conform to and fully accept what those in power assert, even that 2+2=5.

This Country was built on the idea of tolerance, tolerance of other ideas, of others who are different.  This does not mean required acceptance of diverse views, but it does mean accepting that those diverse from us have a right to exist and to express their beliefs. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 

Those are the words of the FIRST Amendment.  The most important amendment.  It protects the people from a government that would deny them of their very right to free thought.  It demands tolerance, even of views with which we deeply disagree. 

The words seem to be meaningless to the Democrats who cannot tolerate even the slightest question or criticism.  The “thought police” have been around for some time.   But the Democrats seem to have taken it to a new level as they try in every way possible to silence opposing and especially conservative thought.  

The Left would have us all think alike; their purpose is to achieve and hold the power that will allow them to lead us into their socialist “utopia.”  And now we have the Left-supported “cancel culture” with its accompanying violence.  Whatever else the purpose of all this may be, it certainly has a chilling effect on those who would speak out or even question the Democrat mantras. 

Tolerance can be difficult.  But it is key to freedom.  Intolerance, once accepted into society, can be fickle: intolerance by one today may become intolerance against them tomorrow.  With intolerance comes the threat of suppression of thought for everyone. 

Those for whom freedom of thought is important must do what they can to stop the Democrat oppression of ideas that are not theirs.  One thing we can do is to vote Republican in November.

 

 

Social Justice or Actual Justice For All?

Social Justice is not actual Justice.  It should not replace actual justice and the media should not take sides in helping it to do so.

What is social justice?  It is a concept that involves fair relations between various classes of society and usually involves the distribution of wealth, opportunity, property, and privileges within that society.  Social justice causes often fall into sociological categories that easily correlate to those involved in identity politics: race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, nationality. 

Justice is that which allows for fair adjudication between competing claims.  Decisions are based on rules such as the law and the Constitution that provide for fair and equal adjudication between parties without regard to a party’s identity categorization.  Hence, the concept of “blind justice”:  justice will treat all individuals equally.

Justice cares about facts; social justice cares about causes.  Here are some examples of social justice warriors bringing their cause to a case where there are facts not supporting their cause:

• The #MeToo Warriors sought to advance their cause using the allegations of sexual misconduct against then nominee and now Justice Kavanaugh.  The facts did not support their cause.  The warriors chose to deny the facts and/or find them not important.
• The anti-Conservative/anti-Trump Warriors sought to attack and silence a group of high-school boys wearing MAGA hats by claiming that the boys had instigated a racist incident on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  When video tapes and other information did not support their claims, they ignored those facts and continued to fault and attack the boys. 
• The Social Justice Warriors who believe that Trump is the antithesis of all their causes are supportive of any actions against him.  Thus, they support the Mueller investigation in the hopes that it will destroy the President and remove him from office.  Hence, they applaud tactics used by that investigation that at a minimum push the envelope towards denial of 4^th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the repeated use of gestapo-like tactics whenever someone closely related to Trump and his campaign are arrested.
• When a Black child was shot in her car and there was a White man in a pickup known to be nearby, without more the Warriors began demonstrations and claims against the White man whom they claimed was a racist and white supremacist and whom they immediately found guilty of the murder.  When facts proved that the White man was nothing more than a by-stander and that the child had been murdered by a Black man in a case of mistaken identity, the facts were again ignored. 
• The Warriors claim that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, seemingly making one of the qualifications that the president be someone of whom they approve.  Again, they ignore the facts of our Constitution which clearly sets forth the qualifications: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  Clearly, President Trump meets these qualifications, yet the Social Justice Warriors continue to claim he does not.

These are just of few of the more recent incidents that demonstrate that not only is social justice not the equivalent of justice, it is actually often its antithesis.  Social Justice will support lying to further its cause.  It accepts bearing false witness and accepts manufacturing facts that support its narrative and its causes.  It accepts and supports violation of our Constitution and our protected rights if those rights stand in the way of furthering the causes of the Social Justice Warriors.

This approach of the Social Justice Warriors goes hand-in-hand with identity politics that try to pit one identifiable group against another for political gain.  Identity politicians often try to pit a group that is less well-off in some way against another group with more of what the less well-off group lacks.  Socialists and Communists have long pitted the “workers” against the “bosses,” promising a better life to the workers if they will support the Socialist/Communist leaders. 

Identity politicians also pit one group against another; they convince one group that all their problems are due to another group and promise the first group that their life will be better if they support the identity politicians in their fight against the second group.   Look again at the list of social justice causes and see how they compare to identity political hatred:  race – fomenting minority anger against alleged White privilege; sexual orientation – fomenting LGBTQ anger against those whose religious beliefs, while demanding tolerance of diverse orientations do not condone such practices among their believers; nationality – fomenting anger of immigrants and especially illegal immigrants against all those who seek to contain illegal immigration regardless of their views on how broadly or narrowly the legal immigration laws should be drawn. 

Identity politics have always been with us to some extent, though I would argue that beginning with the previous administration they became a much more prevalent tactic, especially of the political Left.  But now, we have that Left using those tactics along with their claims of social justice as a way to negate a legitimate election and silence all who do not fully accept their views.  And the real victims in all of this are facts and the rule of law – the two things that are necessary for justice to prevail.

True Justice, true Fairness, requires that all be treated equally and that the rights of all, not just those of this or that favored group, be protected.  For rights to be protected, facts must be heard, verified, and accepted.  Partisans can argue over what the facts mean and what is their significance, but they cannot deny or make up facts to suit their purposes. 

The problem currently is that the partisans, with the help of the 24-hour news cycle and a partisan press, rile up their appropriate identity groups first.  Then, when facts are revealed, those facts no longer matter as the mobs scream for their latest social justice cause.  Worked into a frenzy, rationality is lost.  That is just the state that the Social Justice Warriors need their supporters to be in – a state where feelings can be used and manipulated, a state where specific identity groups can be characterized as enemies not entitled to basic rights, or to fair treatment under law, a state where the chosen identity group will believe the promises that they will have all their wants as well as needs fulfilled if they only support their social justice warriors. 

The problem with social justice and its identity political practices today is that it is by its very nature unfair.  The Social Justice Warriors believe that their chosen groups should have all that they demand while at the same time believing that it is appropriate and acceptable to silence and deny even basic rights to the groups they have designated as enemies and those not in line with their “social justice” positions.  Thus, for example, the Left assert their free speech rights, while seeking to deny free speech to those supporting the opposition – it is acceptable to silence and destroy those wearing MAGA hats, while supporting threats and attacks (both verbal and physical) by those on the Left against those on the Right.

Blacks Law Dictionary, defining law in jurisprudence, states that justice is “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.”  This is very different from rendering every person, or every person on your side only, their every desire.  Justice is fairness – to all, not just to one favored group over another.  It takes into account the actions of the individual as a person, not as a mere identity caricature.  And, it requires a respect for the facts and the law. 

Social Justice may be based on high ideals; it can be simply a partisan political tactic.  In either event, it is not a synonym for Justice.    And while Justice allows for Social Justice to push its causes, Social Justice as currently practiced does not allow Justice for all.