Lady Macbeth is a Racist: Newspeak, Self-Censorship and Withdrawing Sanction

 

A good deal of the literature of the past was, indeed, already being transformed [ideologically]. Considerations of prestige made it desirable to preserve the memory of certain historical figures, while at the same time bringing their achievements into line with the philosophy of Ingsoc. Various writers, such as Shakespeare, Milton, Swift, Byron, Dickens, and some others were therefore in process of translation: when the task had been completed, their original writings, with all else that survived of the literature of the past, would be destroyed.

--George Orwell: Principles of Newspeak

 

Simply put, if you are . . . for Constitutionally limited government, free market capitalism, equality under the law, and freedom for all Americans, then you are a racist. If you are for unlimited government and increasing dependency on the Democrat Party, then you are not a racist. Any questions?

-- Kyle Becker: The Politically Correct Guide to Racism for Idiots 

 

I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win—and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was “No.”

--Ayn Rand: John Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged

 

There has been much discussion on the internet of the Progressive Democrat’s tendency to avoid constructing an argument or to shout down a painful truth by accusing others of racism. On the punditry level, such accusations has gone from the ridiculous to the outright idiotic as black Democratic Party hacks have gone from accusing libertarians and conservatives of racism for criticism of the president for his ideology and policies to accusing us of racism for the use of certain otherwise neutral words in our political speech. It has come to the point where one can neither criticize Obama for his general ineptitude, foreign policy or domestic policies, nor use certain words (“golf,” “apartment,” “anger,” “socialist” and “crime” all come to mind) in reference to any administration official whatsoever, without being accused of being a racist.

In the political arena, we know the purpose of this tactic: it is to silence and isolate the opposition without the bother of actually constructing an argument. Such demonization is a shortcut to winning through intimidation, in order that certain ideas become impossible to talk about at all, ensuring the Democratic party an unearned hegemony over public discourse. In short, it is Newspeak in the Orwellian sense:

The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.

--George Orwell: Principles of Newspeak

Thus the accusation of racism in response to political speech in this fashion is the tool of the demagogue, pure and simple.

Even more troubling is the use of the tactic by progressives against their “friends” during personal and public conversations on any topic in which someone lets a political (but not necessarily partisan) statement slip out. Here again, the purpose of the accusation is to demonize someone who does not agree on some issue, and to 
silence opposition in order to evade an unwanted truth.

Since we live in a society that conflates accusation with guilt, such an attack is difficult to recover from, because it is impossible to prove a negative. It is a powerful technique of the political left, placing their enemies on the defensive, and allowing the demagogues to claim the moral high ground while conducting themselves in the most vile manner, in an impressive display of irrationality and bullying. 

Such attacks serve to impoverish the language of discourse, and leave rational people scratching their heads over whether they can talk about the ‘pot calling the kettle black’ or calling a ‘spade an f***ing shovel’. The self-righteous censors thus achieve their object of making discourse on certain topics impossible, and setting boundaries on what people who disagree with them are able to say, right down to the nouns themselves: black, dark, spot . . .

Did I say spot? Yes, I did. Because according to one self-righteously progressive former friend, Shakespeare’s Lady Macbeth is a racist. In a personal conversation relating to a rather bitter and nasty remark she made toward another of her “friends” in the context of Obama’s second inaugural, “spot” is a racist term. After I allowed as to how the statement was unlike my  former friend’s usual happy and sunny disposition, she commented to me: “‘Methinks the lady doth protest too much.’” To which I responded:
“I don’t think I am ready to “out, out that damned spot.’”  She then enquired about the health of my sense of humor. Seeing that she didn’t really “get” my reference to her quote from Macbeth, I told her I didn’t have a sense of humor, apparently—since my poor attempt was not understood—excused myself and went about my day.
 
Later, I was totally blindsided when, in connection with a different discussion that she initiated, she wrote about the “racist comment” that I had left on her Facebook Timeline. Having already been accused of “protesting too much,” I pointed out that the reference was to Lady Macbeth’s mad scene, and when my former friend insisted it was a racist reference (I suppose about Obama, even though he had not been a topic of the conversation), I did not bother to continue the conversation.

For those who do not know the reference, as I suspect the progressive bully did not, here is the reference from Macbeth, Act 5 Scene I, in which the lady goes mad for having murdered the king:

LADY MACBETH
35 Out, damned spot! out, I say!—One: two: why,
36 then, 'tis time to do't.—Hell is murky!—Fie, my
37 lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
38 fear who knows it, when none can call our power
39 to account?—Yet who would have thought the old
40 man to have had so much blood in him?

Doctor
41 Do you mark that?

LADY MACBETH
42 The thane of Fife had a wife; where is she now?—
43 What, will these hands ne'er be clean?—No more o'
44 that, my lord, no more o' that: you mar all with
45 this starting.

The spot she is seeing in her madness is the blood of murder on her hands. My reference was simply an attempt to defuse the rapidly deteriorating conversation by responding to the reference to Lady Macbeth with a reference of my own.  As one of my friends said, upon seeing the exchange between me and my once friendly bully: “Good thing you didn’t refer to Othello. That would have forever blackened your name.” 

The response to this kind of bullying is often self-censorship. The individual so attacked and publicly vilified so unfairly will often begin to think before speaking, to spend time trying to avoid all of the trip-wire words and phrases that might result in another accusation of racism. This is a useless exercise.

Make no mistake about it, the purpose of such tactics is to demonize and isolate anyone with a voice who would oppose the progressive ideology, in order to try to render her ineffective through the art of the smear. It doesn’t matter what words liberty-loving libertarians and conservatives say, the progressive ideologue will twist them or outright lie about their import, diverting attention from the actual topic of conversation into the denouncement of a personal attack. The purpose—overt or covert—is to silence dissent from the statist/collectivist/progressive world view. (For more on this see David Horowitz’s pamphlet, Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolutionaries: The Alinksy Model).

Now here I hasten to add that not everyone who makes the politically correct racist accusation is, in fact, a leftist ideologue. Many are the useful idiots, who buy the moral high-ground without understanding the basis of the tactics involved. Nor do they necessarily aspire to the ultimate goal, although they usually have some inchoate sense of helping to bring about utopia. A sense of being wronged, of being entitled to something someone else has, that they want and have not gotten often fuels such an attitude, as it has in my former friend’s case. She angrily accused me of having “got yours” and of all manner of violent intention and lack of charity now that I had it. None of this has any basis in reality, but it does bespeak anger and resentment improperly directed at me. To put it bluntly, my former friend is playing the politics of envy for her own purposes, and is likely a useful idiot rather than a leftist ideologue.

But whatever the reason for such accusations as this, the purpose is the same: to silence those who disagree and threaten the leftist Vision of the Anointed. And it often works. Ask yourself how often you have bit your tongue rather than respond to some diatribe in a university classroom, how often you have erased a comment after trying to craft it in order not to be misunderstood, and you will begin to recognize how often you may have censored yourself.

Although the progressive left is not above an overt attack on the First Amendment ( and we have already heard the warning shots across the bow), it is far easier to get people to censor themselves rather than to suppress them by external force. The power of social condemnation is great, and many otherwise vocal Americans would rather be silent than to risk it for little purpose. After all, we reason, it is unlikely that my speaking up will change any minds in this place at this time.

I vehemently disagree. Of course, it doesn’t do much good to continue an argument on someone else’s Facebook Timeline, blog or in their home and on their turf. However, in public, whether it be in a college class or PTA meetings, it is important to speak up, peacefully but firmly. Silence can be taken for assent, and we must not give  up our sanction to such unreasonable and downright evil tactics as demonization by accusations of racism.

In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s protagonists call this “the sanction of the victim.” This is the ideas that evil in and of itself is powerless and unreasonable, and must not only take from the good to survive, but needs the moral approbation of the victim in order to triumph. By silently accepting an accusation of racism and allowing it to shut us up, we are giving that much more power to false accusation. By apologizing for our principles arrived at rationally, we are allowing unreason and emptiness to take the moral high ground. How then can we complain when that emptiness and meanness brings down all that is creative and productive in our world?

It is also true that if you speak out, it is likely you will soon hear from a number of other people in the room who were thinking the same thing, but frightened to say it, each one feeling alone and isolated, which is just what the irrational accusation was intended to accomplish. Nothing defeats a bully tactic better that straight up, reasoned confrontation that brings principled people together. Hearing others refuse their sanction to patent nonsense encourages good people to speak up. It benefits all people of principle to encourage one another, for the culture wars are nothing less than a battle for our liberty and our civilization. We must fight it with more passion and conviction than our enemies, who take it very seriously indeed.

In my situation with my former friend, I knew it would be fruitless to continue in an “was not, was too” fashion there on her Timeline. I also recognized that we are not and cannot be friends. Friendship requires shared values and mutual respect—a sanction of one another’s goals at some level, and a genuine desire to bring out the best in the other. It is not a mark of friendship to tolerate another’s wrongs or weaknesses, and to accept less than the best in that person. I have known for some time that the shared values I used to enjoy with this friend have disappeared, and that her political ideology precludes any agreement. 

For the longest time, I did not understand why many of my friends and compatriots in the battle for liberty and reason would make announcements such as: “If you voted for Obama, then please unfriend me.” I thought that it was still possible to keep the lines of communication open. It has now dawned on me—too slowly to spare me pain—that there is no communication with those who substitute platitudes for principles and demagoguery for reason, that this is not about the ordinary disagreements of normal American politics, it is a battle between two incompatible world views, one of which will destroy the other.

Now I understand my friends’ actions. I will not tolerate a so-called friend who turns on me and demonize me so readily, because that is not the behavior of a friend. I cannot continue to give my sanction to irrational ravings and untruthful accusations, because I myself will lose my mooring to reality. There can be no compromise on principle, and there can be no surrender of my values without the loss of all that I have learned and all that I hope to accomplish in the future. 

I will not sit idly by while accusations of racism pervert and destroy discourse, silencing the good for the sake of the weak. 

 

Technorati Tags: Courage,Politically Incorrect,Moral Sanction,Newspeak

The Propaganda of Implied Association

Just before the Sabbath began Friday evening, our rabbi posted a letter by Marianne Williamson at his Facebook account stating that it was rational and important. The letter was an attack on Sarah Palin. Or rather it was an attack on something that Palin wrote in her blog. But rather than being a direct and open critique of Palin's ideas in that blog, Williamson took two lines of metaphor from the end of Palin's statement, and used it to imply that Palin advocated actions that were nowhere stated in the text of Palin's blog. Further, Williamson went on to imply through the use of generalities that Sarah Palin and those who support her or any of her ideas, would then be responsible for the unamed future actions of any individuals who might plan or commit violence against members of the current executive branch.

Williamson's letter is not rational, but it is important because it represents a concerted attack on the free speech of those who oppose the policies of the current administration that has been ongoing in the propaganda of the mainstream media (MSM). And it is important to address what the members of the MSM are doing NOT because I agree with all of Sarah Palin's ideas (I disagree with Palin more often than not), nor because I like Sarah Palin (I don't know her), but because this propaganda technique of implied association can be successfully used to shut down opposition to the policies of any government without the necessity of ever using reasoned arguments to discuss the ideas behind those policies. That almost all members of the MSM use propaganda rather than providing the public with the facts and ideas vis-a-vis specific administration policy indicates that the press is not in any real sense free; that is it is biased in favor of those in power and their policies, whoever those in power happen to be. As such, the product of the work of the media should also be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.

I will quote freely from Palin and from Williamson for the purposes of this essay, but for purpose of space, I will not provide full quotations of both documents. Rather, I will provide links to the full documents on their first citation here.

Williamson's letter purports to be an admonition to Sarah Palin for the use of this metaphor in a blogpost that compares the March Madness NCAA Basketball Tournament with a political campaign. Although Williamson takes the highlighted sentence below out of its context, I quote it here in context:

"To the teams that desire making it this far next year: Gear up! In the battle, set your sights on next year's targets! From the shot across the bow--the first second's tip off--your leaders will be in the enemies crosshairs, so you must execute strong defensive tactics. You won't win only on defense, so get on offense! The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons--your Big Guns--to drive to the hole. Shoot with accuracy, aim high and remember, it takes blood, sweat and tears to win."
(From govenorpalin4president.blogspot.com, March 28, 2010. The full text can be found here).

But what Williamson really does in her open letter to Palin has nothing to do with Palin per se. Rather the letter, with its effusive compliments of Palin's book, and the expression of desire to speak together reasonably, never drops below the surface of glittering generalities. Instead those generalities are used to carefully construct the implication that Sarah Palin is responsible for inciting violence against the President of the United States in this blog entry
by use of the above sports metaphor. She writes:

"Please modify your words.
In my lifetime, we have lost a President (sic), a Civil Rights leader (sic), and a Presidential Candidate (sic), all to gun violence . . . I am not suggesting that you would pick up a gun and shoot anyone; I am suggesting there are other people who would, however, and in your position as a leading political figure you are stoking fires . . . that are too dangerous to be safely stoked."
(From huffingtonpost.com, undated. The full text can be found here).

Here Williamson takes what is clearly a sports metaphor--in which a basketball game is compared to a battle--and indirectly equates it to "gun violence", and further to "gun violence" directed against the President of the United States. After protesting too much that her argument has nothing to do with partisan politics, Williamson then implies that the use of such metaphors will cause "dangerous" people to enter into a Nazi-like "group psychosis." (Remember the MIAC report. The groundwork has been carefully laid by this government and its media cheerleaders to characterize peaceful people like the Tea Parties--even anti-war people like Ron Paul supporters--as dangerous based only on their political beliefs. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, isn't that what the Nazi's did?)

Williamson's penultimate paragraph adds insult to injury by using the propaganda technique of "nice words" to imply that not only is Sarah Palin full of hate due to the basketball metaphor that Williamson changed to gun violence, but that it's use is "frightening". This is an appeal to fear--we should all be deathly afraid of Palin and her supporters (and their flying basketballs)--because the desire to win a political battle against the current adminstration is "dangerous." As is the use of free speech. Williamson is so sanctimonious as to make one gag:

"Please join me in turning to a God of Love and not fear . . ."

As if the whole letter was not calculated to inspire fear of Palin and her supporters, and anyone else who wants to defeat the current administration and majority party in 2010 and 2012.

Williamson's sanctimonious propaganda is a nasty attack on its face, but worse is the use to which this letter other such blogs have been put within the context of the current political climate. From the MIAC report, to the harrassment of Campaign for Liberty staffers at airports, to the repeated mischaracterizations of the Tea Partiers as angry racists, a climate of fear is being inculcated among Americans. (Yesterday I spoke for a while to a woman who was quite fearful of the Tea Parties but who could not give me one shred of evidence to support her fear. It turns out she had never even spoken to one of us). But the language of fear is being used by progressive supporters of the Obama administration against those who oppose his policies. It is a craven attempt to avoid a discussion of ideas by use of propaganda, and it is one in which the Obama adminstration and press lackeys have invoked the Vision of Annointed. That is, they have moved the discussion from debate of evidence and facts to one in which they must be right because they are holy, but their opposition is evil because it is wrong.

And this letter from Williamson is part of a concerted attack on the free speech of anyone who opposes Obama's policies in whole or in part. The point is to the plant the seed of doubt about the value of free speech into the minds of Americans by invoking the idea of guilt by implied association. For example, should some crazy person pick up a gun and shoot a politician, it would not be made the fault of the shooter. Rather, anyone who verbally opposed the victim's policy is held responsible for "incitement". And anyone who wanted to defeat that victim in the next election would be held responsible, especially if she used strong, metaphoric language. And anyone who might have at one time or another agreed with one of the myriad ideas that the shooter also happened to espouse, then that person is also responsible. None of these people to be held responsible need ever have known or encountered the shooter.

The point of making such associations is twofold: First, it creates a climate in which people become afraid to make any public statement in opposition to the policies of one of those who hold the Vision of the Annointed, no matter how well reasoned; and 2) it lays the groundwork for a "false-flag" incident through which the opposition can be blamed and then destroyed. (The Reichstag fire was a planned false-flag incident; Krystallnacht was excused by the unplanned death of an SS officer at the hands of a justifiably angry Jew).

This use of collective responsibility through the rhetoric of implied association is a tool of totalitarian dictators the world over. It is used to isolate and exterminate the opposition and other innocent but targeted groups. It is so used because no rational discussion can be had with those who wish to impose their will by force. The progressives have been making an effort of late to disarticulate the concept of force from violence, as if violence were not a species of force (see Amit Ghati's Force and Violence: How the Left Blurs the Terms); and at confusing the INITIATION of Force with defense against it. All force is a violation against the life, liberty or property of another. And it is the INITIATION of force against another that is immoral, not the use of force to defend one's rights against such initiation. The initiation of force is immoral whether it is obtained through fraud, fear, or violence.

It is Williamson, and not Palin, who has hidden motives in this exchange. Palin has made it clear that she opposes the current administration and its policies, and that she would like to see Obama and his supporters defeated in the next election. Williamson would like to make this straightforward political battle into something more. With an iron fist hidden in a velvet glove, she wants to imply that metaphorical speech is direct incitement to violence. She would like her readers to believe that, as one self-proclaimed philosopher on our rabbi's Facebook put it, the free speech of the political opposition needs to be "reigned in." (The "philosopher does not say how so or by whom, but it's a pretty good bet that she means to reign us in by government use of force, for who else would have the power?) The problem with this is that if the rights of any one of us is violated, then the rights of all become mere privileges, to be granted or revoked at the will of the ones with the biggest guns. Then we shall see the real meaning of mere democracy: mob rule.

It is true that these are dangerous times. And we must be extraordinarily careful not to be induced by the mere propaganda of a sanctimonious gun inside a velvet glove into surrendering our rights. Rights were not given by the government, they were "endowed by our Creator" (nature and nature's god); no lien can be placed on them, and any attempt to deny them because they are "dangerous" must be determinedly resisted as peacefully as possible. But make no mistake--peace is the fullness of all aspects of life--the yin and the yang--it is not the refuge of those who are too craven to resist the initiation of force, however siren-like the glittering generalities used to hide it have become. That siren sings a song of hope and change while the chains of our slavery to her power and prestige, unchanged these past administrations, are forged by the venal politicians who place it over and above their oaths of office, there on the plains of the Beltway.

Hard words? Harder are these words:

". . . it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren until she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men who are engaged in the great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst and to provide for it.
. . . there is no retreat but in submission and slavery. Our chains are forged . . . is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others take, but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!"
---Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

I'll take hard honest words over nice slippery ones any day.

The Virtuous Care of Ideas and Maintaining Good Will

"Two percent of the people think,

Three percent think they think,

and 95 percent would rather die than think."

--attributed widely

There appears to be an ongoing problem among patriots. It is a problem that eats away at the movement, fostering disunity and preventing us from enjoying our successes in the past and our union for the purpose of achieving the goal of the restoration of Constitutional governance among the United States. This problem is the propensity of factions among us to use smears and innuendo to destroy others among us. There may be many reasons for this, but the excuse that it is due to "independent thinking" is not supported by the tactics used.

There is hardly a day that goes by where I do not receive some e-mail or message that indulges in a smear against another patriot, or generalizes as a threat some group of people or another pose against us. There is hardly a day that goes by when I do not hear some general and mean-spirited statement made against someone based on a two-minute You Tube video clip, as if that was evidence of the sum of the target's thought.

For example, on Tuesday I received a Facebook message from a person I do not know and who has not "friended" me, making it impossible for me to form any judgement about her credibility. She titled the conversation "Your Friend, Adam Kokesh" and she wrote:

" It pays to know who your friends really are. His history is against the freedoms of Americans . . . and he is running for congress in the 2nd district of NM. Could there be 2 with the same name?"

Aside from the factual error present (Adam Kokesh is running in the 3rd Congressional District of New Mexico), I am expected to believe that Adam has a history "against the freedoms of Americans" based on what exactly? That this unknown commentor says so? There is no way to even know what prompted this woman to write this message, and there is certainly no persuasive argument present in the statement. I therefore responded:

"You made a pretty broad accusation against Adam Kokesh and provided no evidence. I don't know who you are and who your associates are. I do have that information for Adam. So you need to back up your accusations with hard evidence. Otherwise you will get no respect from me."

I had a hypothesis about the origins of her animosity towards Adam Kokesh, but there was no way to tell from her actual statement how accurate I was, although I did base my hypothesis on some previous encounters with Kokesh's attackers in the Republican Party. So I was conducting a fishing expedition in my reply for two reasons. The first is that it is possible that this woman has some evidence that might shape or alter my current support for Adam's campaign, and if so, it would good to have that evidence. The second is that it might be possible to educate this person, to demonstrate that it pays to gather some evidence before jumping to a conclusion based on the thoughtless assertions of others. In other words, it pays to actually think independently rather than mindlessly pass on nasty rumors and innuendo that could harm another person, and more, that can and will needlessly focus attention away from the basic goals we share.

The communication I received in response confirmed my hypothesis. She replied (in part):

"Listen to Adam's speeches on You Tube. His words are carefully worded, as a psychology major. He served under the Bush era. My husband served under the Carter and Nixon era.

"When Mr. Kokesh joined the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) in February 2007, at which time he was 25 years old, he joined what the group stands for. He talks about how he bought into their BS in his video's (sic) and so he volunteered. None the less (sic), the Oath was the same. His words are not in support of patriots. I would not support the founder of IVAW. Would you support it's (sic) founder, John Kerry's ideas?"

I want to first make a factual correction here: John Kerry is not the founder of IVAW, as this writer seems to be saying. John Kerry was one of the founders of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and entirely different organization founded in response to a different unconstitutional war.

But more to the point, although this commentor did supply the reason for sending this message to me (she dislike's Adam's stand against the war in Iraq) thus confirming my hypothesis, she provided no evidence nor did she make any persuasive argument. As she said herself later in the message, she has not thought her stand through, rather she based her ideas soley on "the words of others." This is not independent thinking.

Before I deal with the issue of independent thinking (or lack thereof), however, I want to point out the nature of what is passed off as an argument in this statement. The first sentence is an instruction, and is fine as far it goes. It is a general thesis statement that leads the reader to believe that evidence will be forthcoming--perhaps an analysis of some of Adam's speeches on YouTube. But rather than being the starting point of a point being made, it is follwed by a non-sequiter: "His words are carefully worded, as a psychology major." The statement left me scratching my head. Is this writer telling me that she is a psychology major? Or is she claiming that Kokesh is a psychology major? And what in heaven's name does being a psychology major have to do with what Adam Kokesh said on YouTube? Since this woman did not provide a link, at this point I was hoping she'd clarify in her next sentence. But she did not, leaving me to believe that she might think that being a psychology major makes one an enemy to patriots everywhere. Or is she saying that I should pay attention to Adam's words as a psychology major might? And if so, what kind of psychology?

The "paragraph" is finished off with another possible thesis about when Adam Kokesh served in the military (Bush era) and when this writer's husband served (Nixon-Carter eras). Again, I am left wondering what this has to do with the price of potatoes. The statements become generalities (they don't even glimmer, let alone glitter) because they are not related back to the overall thesis that Adam Kokesh is an enemy to freedom loving Americans.

Pressing onward, the next paragraph begins thusly:
"When Mr. Kokesh joined the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) in 2007, at which time he was 25 years old, he joined what the group stands for."

So far, so muddled. I get that Kokesh joined IVAW in 2007, but I wonder what his age has to do with that decision? (At this point my Aspie-brain calculates that Adam is now 28 years and 38 days old given that he was born on February 2).That he joined what the group stands for makes sense, and the question that pops into my mind is what does this writer think the group stands for? It's pretty clear that the group is against the war in Iraq, but I am hoping the writer will clarify if the group is united in why they are all against the war, or if they have diverse reasons for being against it. Both are possible.


Alas, no such luck. The writer then informs me that Adam volunteered (for what? the war or IVAW?) because he believed "their BS" .(Whose BS? IVAW or the ubiquitous "they" that runs our lives while we are sleeping?) Clear as mud. I can guess that she means that Adam volunteered for the Marines and that he believed the B.S. put out by the military-industrial-educational complex, but I can't be sure. It's unspecified. So far, I have more questions than answers.

She goes on to say that nevertheless, ". . . the Oath was the same." I am guessing that she is talking about the Oath taken by all military members, and by all other public servants. The Oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic." I know the Oath hasn't changed, but at this point I am confused about why this woman is bringing it up. Is she saying that Adam has not kept the Oath? And if so, what exactly has he done to make her believe that? She doesn't say. From the next sentence, I get that whatever she thinks, she is relating the Oath to her assertion that Adam is an enemy of patriots. But--frustratingly--she does not say why I should believe her belief.

The woman then ends with another set of non-sequiters: "I would not support the founder of IVAW. Would you support it's (sic) founder, John Kerry's words?"

The first statement is clear as far as it goes. She doesn't support the founder of the group. I don't know who she thinks that person is, but fine. It's a free country. She then asks if I would support John Kerry's words, but in such a way that I cannot tell if she thinks he started IVAW. (He did not). Or does she think that the founder--whoever that might be--also supports John Kerry's words? And if so, which words? Or worse, is she implying that if I support Adam Kokesh's run for congress, I am also supporting John Kerry's unspecified words? Or worse still, is she implying that if one agrees with John Kerrry that the Vietnam War was NOT A GOOD WAR, does that mean that she believes one agrees with every word John Kerry ever said?
This last is a fatal error of logic.

At this point I gave up trying to figure out what this woman might be trying to say to me because there are too many possiblities. (Aspie-brain interpolation II: Why did that guy in the Glass Cathedral ever think possibility thinking was a good thing!)

The point of it all is that this reply that purports to provide me evidence for Adam Kokesh's hatred of American freedoms does nothing of the kind. It is, once again, a series of assertions that are as unclear as they are unsupported. And this brings me the long way 'round to my point. This is not independent thinking. In fact, it is not thinking at all. It is simply a mish-mash of the ideas this woman has been fed by others, and it was certainly not carefully considered by her, and the muddle probably started with baseless accusations by others. In fact, the woman admitted as much, saying: "If my information is incorrect, I apologize for believing the written word of others."

What she does not apologize for is the baseless smearing of Adam Kokesh which she argues from the muddled assertions of faceless "others." Who are they and do they have any credibility? What are their arguments?
Further, no information is given in this series of assertions and non-sequiters. There is no way to know from what she saying why she believes her assertions are true, and there is no way to judge their quality. Well, actually there is. The assertions as presented twice, are baseless and thoughtless and should not be accepted or passed on.

The larger point is that way too often such glib smears are accepted as if handed down from Sinai and passed on uncritically through many nodes of internet chatter. This damages our efforts to unite many diverse groups of patriots under the banner of the Constitution.

Therefore, I wrote this in my reply to this woman:

"IMHO it is this idea (that if one agrees with one statement by a person, it is both necessary and sufficient to say that one agrees with everything that person is or believes) that is responsible for much of the propaganda and smear campaigns indulged in by both major parties, and has contributed significantly to the polarization of political thought in the United States . . .

"Clear thinking is needed for the various groups in the patriot movement to cease from destroying one other, and focus on restoring our Constitution and our liberties. . .
[Your arguments as presented] are merely unfounded speculation and innuendo, taken from the baseless opinions of others, formed by the emotions of various kinds (jealousy comes to mind), which serve only to destroy and divide rather than to build up and create.

"Liberty can only be preserved among people who are virtuous in the care of ideas, and who maintain a basic good will towards those who labor in other parts of the vineyard . . ."


If we wish to succeed in our goal of the Restoration of the Republic, then it is to our benefit to argue ideas and not personalities, and to take care that the words and ideas (they are not necessarily the same), are carefully considered and well-founded upon hard evidence. Further, we need to practice the maintenance of a certain good-will toward one other in the absence of contradicting evidence, considering that different opinions are created from different experiences even if the underlying values are the same; and further, that they lead us to spend our energies in different parts of the battle at hand. No one person has the whole answer, but it takes the hands of many, laboring in different parts of the proverbial vineyard, in order to take us together to the place of living liberty.

The Wrong Side of a Do-Gooding Law

It is interesting to see what strange bedfellows the current rush of the federal government toward fascism* is creating. Yes, fascism. I am tired of self-censoring, and I think it's about time to call a spade an F'ing shovel.

*Fascism is here defined as the control of capital and those who manage it by the government, through the use of central planning, although the actual companies remain nominally in private hands.

In the past few weeks, I have been thinking about how those of us who oppose any part of President Obama's* monster government have been cast. I have seen it in the comments to this blog. The progressive bloggers and the lefties have consistently labeled concerned citizens as partisan, and have cast all arguments into the major party straightjackets. Obama's minions are every bit as eager to use the "if you're not for us, you're against us" cannard as were G.W.'s hacks.

*Yes, I am aware that Obama "inherited" Mr. Bush's monster government and trashed economy, but Obama has set out to grow government even bigger much faster, and he is trashing the dollar at an even more alarming rate. This is now his government, and two branches are controlled by one party. They cannot excuse their behavior by blaming the previous administration forever. And for the record, I was just as opposed to Bush's big government as I am to Obama's mongo-sized one.

Consider this statement from comments to my blog, by way of example.
About the Tea Party:
"In this case, it was instigated and coordinated by right-wing lobbyists, the Republican Party and Fox News as well as the rest of the conservative media as a means of bashing Obama and rallying support to an otherwise floundering GOP."

If you disagree with any part of the Vision of the Annointed, not only are you "seen as being in error, but in sin" (as Sowell writes in The Vision of the Annointed, p. 3), and further, you are seen as being unable to think for yourself, and told that you are being manipulated; the Annointed worry about you, concerned that you might "get mixed up with these people." But actually, their whole purpose is to paint those who disagree as partisan and manipulated, so that discussion never rises to any meaningful level where opposing views are seen as equally sincere. As Sowell says about the level of argument:

"What is remarkable is how few arguments are really engaged in, and how many substitutes for arguments there are . . . Many of these so called "thinking people" (EHL: the Annointed) could be more accurately characterized as articulate people, as people whose verbal nimbleness can elude both evidence and logic." (p. 5-6).

So what happens as more and more people run afoul of the maze of contradictory regulations and limitations to our liberty imposed by the well-meaning Nanny State?

This month, I opened my copy of Reason Magazine to read about some at least slightly granola DIY'ers who have run afoul of the new Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA), the purported purpose of which is to protect our kids from lead-laced toys from China. Like many recent regulations however, the law actually has the result of destroying of American-based small toymaker's businesses because of the onerous and expensive testing requirements. (For much, much more about CPSIA link through here and here). Need I say that these American small businesses, run by crunchy capitalists, have never marketed products containing lead?

The DIY'ers, who believed that the harm the regulations would do to their businesses was an oversight by Congress, formed organizations, like the Handmade Toy Alliance (the second "here" in the paragraph above), to get the law amended. And they found out that the party they usually supported was not on their side. Consider the hipster mom and home-based businesswoman Cecilia Leibovitz:

"Before the legislation," says Leibovitz, “I’d never really gotten involved politically. I’ve just tried to work in my own life.” But a lot of what she thought she knew about the political process turned out to be wrong. She was discouraged to discover how little power citizens, and even individual lawmakers, have over legislation. Consumer safety groups, she says, ended up getting exactly what they wanted.
“I’ve been supportive of some of these groups,” she says. “I actually blogged about this safety issue in 2007, thinking we were just focusing on problem products. I didn’t realize how massive the law would be and how many products it would cover.” " (Reason Magazine, June 2009, p. 44)

And she discovered something else:

"“What it looks like is that our needs are largely being responded to by Republicans. Most of the people in the Homemade Toy Alliance are probably more aligned with the Democratic side. And people in the Homemade Toy Alliance kind of like the things that these consumer groups are touting, like safer products and natural things.” But now she finds herself in this “weird alliance.” " (ibid).

Leibovitz is still seeing this as a partisan issue, and it's hard for her not to, because Congress has very few members who are not allied with the major parties. But this is really an issue about the power of government, and like many of us before her, her awakening is beginning as she understands that the Congress is more concerned about the big lobby groups and multinational corporations that they represent, than they are about her freedom and prosperity.

To add insult to injury, as children's toys and clothes are being pulled from thrift-store shelves, and are even destroyed, and children's books are being targeted, the political activities of these small business owners is being cast into the standard partisan rhetoric by the progressive media. The very real concerns of opponents to this very bad piece of legislation have been labeled as "alarmist" and the people themselves have been called "conspiracy theorists" and "fear-mongers" by such progressive media as the New York Times.

As Jennifer Grinnell of LivingPlaything.com posted:

". . .The sad fact about larger public discussions in the US these days is how politicized almost every subject has become. In an ‘us’ and ‘them’ environment, we seem to have lost [sight] of the fact that perhaps we, the citizens who find fault with this law, actually have a legitimate point and are not trying to advance an ideology or nefarious political agenda.” (As quoted in Reason Magazine, June 2009, p. 47).

Their sense of betrayal towards their government, and their awakening understanding that their concerns are being cast as a "nefarious political agenda" is well understood by many of us who have trod the same road in years past, awakened by other issues. I was a more than slightly crunchy mom, and my awakening and return to my libertarian roots (second generation and proud of it!) was catalized by 9-11 and home education. As I began to realize that Annointed statists and do-gooders wanted to control what I teach my children, and how I raise them, I understood that all that stands between me and absolute tyranny is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And unless I am willing to trust my fellow citizens of all beliefs and walks of life to manage their own lives, I will not have the freedom to manage mine.

The rhetoric of the Obamaniacs is wearing thin. The tea parties, the 9-12 movement, and patriot groups springing up everywhere understand that this is not about partisan politics, and take no regard of what the vaunted Fourth Estate is saying to itself. (No wonder they aren't making any money). As the toymakers will find out, the Republican party is as morally bankrupt as are the Democrats. They are, with very few exceptions, self-aggrandizing statists whose whole agenda is power and privilege. And they have bought the "opinion makers" with the bread and circuses inside the beltway.

Out here in "flyover country", we don't want to be ruled by the Annointed. And we are tired of paying for their folly.

Sarah Palin's Choice

There has been quite a furor in a small part of the blogosphere over the past two days.
The furor erupted over an article at The Rule of Reason in which Nick Provenzo condemned Sarah Palin's choice to "knowingly give birth to a child with Down's Syndrome." The meat of Provenzo's argument was that, given the publicity celebrating the morality of Palin's choice, it was necessary to state that it is moral for a woman to choose abortion in such circumstances.

However, the fury that was expressed in many of the comments to Provenzo's argument added more heat than light to the issue at hand.
It seems that many of the self-described pro-life commenters have no problem threatening the lives of those who support a woman's right to make her own decisions about her health and family.

I have made no secret of my views on the morality of abortion. I do respect a woman's right to make all decisions regarding her health and the welfare of her family without government interference. I also recognize that for most women, the decision to have an abortion is one that is of the gravest moral and personal importance. I wrote about my personal ideals and my religious views on the matter in my Blogging for Choice entry, here.

That said, I do think that in his article Nick Provenzo came very close to stating that a woman carrying a Down's pregnancy is morally obligated to have an abortion. He begins by saying:

"Like many, I am troubled by Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down Syndrome."

This sounds like the problem for Provenzo is that Palin made a different choice than he would have made. She chose to go ahead with the pregnancy, rather than have an abortion. It would be easy to respond that Provenzo does not support a woman's moral right to make her own choice, unless that choice agrees with Provenzo's; that is, women really do not have the right to make a choice at all. Many of the comments did indeed make that response. Indeed, my first reaction was that Provenzo was arguing that a woman has a moral duty to have an abortion in such a case, but when I re-read his second sentence, I saw that this is not what he was saying. Rather, he makes this argument:

". . . it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus with Down Syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)--a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny."

I take this statement to mean that choosing for an abortion is moral. And I agree with that. However, Provenzo did not actually say that choosing against abortion is also a moral decision in this post, and so I put in a comment to discuss it among other exceptions I took to his post. I think my comment got lost among the hateful comments, because Provenzo did not clarify his position, which left him open to the charge that a woman has a right to choose as long as her choice is the one that Provenzo thinks is right.

Today, Provenzo did clarify his position in another post at the Rule of Reason. He said:
". . .a woman has the unqualified moral right to abort a fetus she carries inside her in accordance with her own judgment" (Emphasis added). It is clear then, that although Provenzo might personally disagree with Sarah Palin's choice, he does recognize her right to make it.

And that is the crux of the matter. Sarah Palin did make a choice. There are those who celebrate it for their own reasons, and there are those who condemn it for other reasons. But she made a choice in accordance with her own judgment, giving consideration to her means and ability to raise such a child and her desire to take on that responsibility.

I take exception to those who would see to it that other women have no such choice--those who would force a woman to carry a pregnancy that is, in her own judgment, detrimental to her own life and that of her family. And I also take exception to the many pundits and commentators who profess to be in favor of women making their own choices, but who condemn Sarah Palin for doing just that. Ultimately, the decision to have an abortion or not in these cases is of the gravest moral importance. A woman must consider her own life and circumstances, as well as the impact on her husband, and on any existing children in the family. She must also consider her religious affiliation and her moral convictions. None of these considerations is trivial.

Now, I do have a bone to pick with Nick Provenzo. It is his statement that a woman who knowingly chooses to give birth to a child with disabilities is a worshiper of disability. (His actual words are "the worship of retardation.") This hyperbole goes too far. Sarah Palin's decision to carry her child was a private matter. She has not discussed it in detail, nor should she be required to do so. Provenzo does not know how long Palin deliberated on this matter, nor does he know the reasoning that she used. He may guess based on her religious affiliation and public statements, but that guess could be woefully far from the mark.

An Aside: People often make ridiculous assertions about my stances on issues based on my religion. Actually, it is more that these guesses are based on their ignorance of my religion. I had one extremely ignorant supporter of "objective government" who was convinced that since I am a Jew, I must be a creationist. That one clearly knows nothing about Judaism: even the most orthodox of Jews are not biblical literalists or fundamentalists.

There are many reasons that a woman might bear and raise a child with disabilities: a sense of responsibility is one; love of the child is another. It was clear to me that, whatever other reasons Sarah Palin had for carrying Trig to term, the most powerful was love. As I watched her speech a few weeks ago, I saw her looking again and again at her child. At one point she smiled that mother's smile and mouthed "my baby."

Finally, to those of you who made a disgrace of the art of rhetoric with your name-calling and threats, I would like to close with this quote from my January 22, 2008 blog entry:

"There are those among us who would like to think that they have a particular entitlement to determine the extent of liberty allowed the rest of us. They would like to tell you and me who we can marry, how many children we ought to have, what health care decisions we must make, and what world-view we must hold. Whether they are on the left or on the right, they are tyrants. Whether they seek to rule us in small matters or large, in personal decisions or public policy, we have the obligation as free men and women to resist them."

You are the tyrants!

And finally, I do not ask anyone else to practice my religion, or to abide by its laws and customs. I recognize that others have the right to practice their own religion in peace. But I expect that those of other religions respect my right to practice mine as well. American patriotism begins with respect for the right of each individual to self-determination in all matters, including those of moral choice.