September 26, 1996
The Windy City lived up to its name in August: the wind blew, the noses blew, and the blood ran blue at the Democrat National Victims Convention. And with each zephyr, another billion was promised, a solatium for our wounded national psyche.
The sick in soul insist that it is humanity that is sick, and they are the surgeons to operate on it. They want to turn the world into a sickroom. And once they get humanity strapped to the operating table, they operate on it with an axe.
... Eric Hoffer
There may have been a time in the world's history when such moments [of decision] fully revealed their gravity, with witches prophesying on a blasted heath or visible Rubicons to be crossed. But, for him, it all slipped past in a chatter of laughter, of that intimate laughter between fellow professionals, which of all earthly powers is strongest to make men do very bad things before they are, individually, very bad men.
... C. S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
Rev. Jesse Jackson's suggestion of compelling the retirement plans of this country's workers to contribute something, say, five percent, as an investment in "rebuilding" the inner cities, is remarkably candid, if not honest. Why not? he asks. Well, it doesn't belong to us, seems a reasonable rejoinder for starters. But that has never stopped a power-grabber before.
Maybe he has hold of an idea here: the retirement plans hold about $5 trillion, according to the Statistical Abstract of the United States, while the national debt is also about $5 trillion, both of them give or take a few hundred billion. We could tax the retirement plans at 100%, pay off the debt, and no one would be a penny worse off. After all, the workers always have Social Security to fall back on, right?
All that would remain to complete this solution to all our problems is a Federal Program for funding the Rainbow Coalition, the "I Am Somebody" Foundation, the Jesse Jackson Foundation, the Jesse Jackson Trust Funds, the Jesse-Jackson-for-Vice-President-Next-Time-Around-Campaign, the Jesse Jackson Library, the Jesse Jackson Peace Memorial and Air Force Base, and the Greater Glory of Jesse Jackson National Monument. Thanks, Rev. Jesse, splendid idea. Now, where did I read, "Thou shall not covet..."?
Liberals are big on "hate speech". If you are saying something they don't like, such as, government should shrink, people should be expected to take care of themselves, or guns aren't responsible for killing people, they immediately set out to find "hate" in your opinions. Labeling your message as "hate speech" gives them an excuse to stop listening, and discussing, and above all, reasoning. But the hypocrisy of this tactic is most evident in their favorite bogey, the Rich. This mostly imaginary, impossibly wicked group is the target of more genuine hate speech, and in my view more genuine hate, than any minority currently being protected. The nurture and promulgation of class envy amongst liberals is a form of hate speech that is apparently utterly immune to criticism in the press or at large. But nowhere does the Left show its true character more visibly or authentically.
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27)
... Jesus of Nazareth
The bland suggestion that commercial television networks schedule educational children's programs for three hours per week, propounded by President Clinton, is one of the latest, and perhaps one of the most dangerous, fabrications of America's controllers and propagandists. Wrapped up in this seemingly harmless and benign proposal are all of the cultural deformities that our society has so eagerly embraced in this century. Behind the facade of government "caring", and under the umbrella of concern for the education of children, lies an evil truth: the current leadership of our nation want to replace the values taught in the home with values of their own choosing. The vehicle for this abomination is called, naturally enough, "education". The Hitler Jungend used the same terms to attain objectives not entirely dissimilar.
Let us be clear: we are not debating free speech, press, and religious practice, or parental rights, or free markets. The American society has enshrined these freedoms not because they create a good society but because they protect us from each other's wickedness and greed. In C. S. Lewis's phrase, they are "medicine, not food." The reality is, that freedom only provides the opportunity to create a good society: it guarantees that we can steer the ship in any direction we desire; it provides neither the destination nor the map.
Nor is this discussion about education, in any reasonable understanding of the term. The reason is simple: television is incapable of imparting any significant amount of education. Education is understood here to mean to process of developing the tools and skills of the intellectual life, together with the knowledge of how to apply these tools to the situations and problems of life. Also, a certain amount of factual knowledge is concomitant in the process. The reason that the television proposal is not about education is that television cannot develop any of the tools of the intellect, because none of these tools can be developed passively. Moreover, the information content of television is so low per unit time, as compared to all forms of reading and, indeed, almost every other form of human experience, that even the imparting of knowledge is not easily or efficiently achieved via the television medium. So, neither rights nor actual education is the issue.
What we are talking about is the right way to live, a very different concern. Knowledge about the right way comes to us from inherited cultural resources, from received wisdom, and above all, from the indwelling Spirit of God. In human society, the vehicle for imparting these things to children is the nurture of home life. Admittedly, this is not a fool-proof mechanism, nor is it in any way uniform throughout society. Indeed, the abnormalities and anomalies of child-rearing provide the bulk of the examples for the study of abnormal psychology. We do not begin to understand all the reasons why this mechanism can fail. But clearly, television is positioned to intervene in the process as a malign disturbance in the training of children.
While it is impossible either to educate or inform to any significant degree via television, it is possible to convey attitudes and values, to convince with pictures and contrived illustrations. By institutionalizing and legitimating indoctrination via television under the name of "education", the possibility now exists to circumvent the traditional structure of parental training, in order to impart to children values more to the taste of the controllers and propagandists. Dr. Joseph Goebbels, with just his radio, newspaper, and movie propaganda apparatus, succeeded in replacing the attitudes and values of an entire nation with those of Nazism; he would be envious of today's machinery for the manipulation of minds. This potential for moral indoctrination through television is truly frightening, all the more because it comes under the guise of entertainment.
Children should not watch television at all. The first thing that television teaches children is to be good television watchers, because it teaches that good things come from television watching. At the worst, what little television watching children are permitted should be strictly supervised by their parents, with the content and moral message constantly in mind. Parents who abandon their children to the care of the television set are abusing their children and neglecting their highest moral obligation. Why? Because the television networks, commercial and otherwise alike, are not interested in education; they are interested in the stifling of imagination and education and thought through rigorous, long-term indoctrination, which includes moral training, cultural training, and ultimately, political training. What the indoctrinators have in mind for moral, cultural, and political training is, not to put too fine a point on it, evil.
[For those who doubt this evil, let me invite you to apply a test: when was the last time you saw a commercial program that actively suggested one should love and be devoted to God? or refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain? or keep the Sabbath? or honor one's parents? How often has a television program urged you to avoid impure thoughts, lust, revenge, or hate? Are the television programmers staunchly opposed to adultery, giving false witness, theft, and covetousness? (Even the staunchest atheist must embrace seven of these standards.) Or do they in fact glorify these things and daily demonstrate how the world rewards those who ignore the fundamental moral teachings of our culture? Well, one finds exceptions here and there, of course; no one is perfect. But the success of television programming depends on rewarding sloth, not upholding virtuous action.]
The principal evil of television resides in two distinct, but compatible, areas. One is the purely commercial: a large segment of the television programmers wish to enslave people to their own appetites. By conditioning people to buy a certain product when they feel a certain way, or want to feel a certain way, the programmers achieve their goal. When they can train people from childhood to this discipline, the process is more often successful. But this is still basically a visceral and materialistic objective. The other is more sinister: the philosophical critique which has been widely derided among adults as "political correctness" is being taught, uncritically and almost unnoticed, in the entertainment programs for children. The latter is a newcomer, brought on, of course, with the best of motives, and the most devastating of results. These propagandists have, with their noble intentions and their base methods, inherited the mantle of the Pharisees, of whom Jesus spoke (see Gospel) so slightingly.
What the new propaganda teaches is that (1) the nature of the world is as the television, and ultimately, the government that mandates the educational program, says it is, not the way parents, tradition, the Church, or even science, say it is; (2) good things come from obedience to suggestions from the television, not parents or authority or religion (the widespread belief that children must "validate" the teaching of their parents is part and parcel to this whole malign doctrine); (3) to be knowing and wise, refer to the television, not to the accumulated wisdom of the world's literature, nor one's family elders, nor one's own interior conscience, developed under the loving guidance of caring parents; and, in particular, (4) the "wall of separation between church and state" must run between the church and us as well, religion must be shut up inside the church, and the church not visited very often, if ever. Religion, and in particular, Christianity, must never be allowed to inform our views on life, our place in society, our behavior outside of church, or the superior role of governing authority.
Of course, the children will adopt the Weltanshauung of television, they will become obedient to its suggestions, and they will look to television for knowledge and wisdom: after all, their parents do all those things. But they will not be better off for it. It was bad enough when the purpose of television was only to sell soap; now that the new "educators" have come, the danger is far greater. To paraphrase T. S. Eliot, the old programmers offered real goods, worthless but real; the new propagandists only offer dreams to damnation.
Frankly, the only thing worse than the plundering of political opponents' FBI files by the White House is the coverup for it. Whitewater, the travel office, big spending ways, creeping socialism, etc., are all burrs on the backside of this presidency. But the FBI file scandal is a knife in its heart. No one believes that this was an honest mistake; the stories told so far by the principal players are literally incredible. The special prosecutor is going to pull on this string long and hard. When he pulls it all the way out, it is going to lead to the White House staff, the president's political advisors, and ultimately to the Clintons, themselves.
If the Clintons should get re-elected, their second Presidency could well be shorter than Nixon's was.
I heard the wonderful, young violinist Gil Shaham again, this time playing Bruch's Scottish Fantasy, assisted by the Dallas Symphony Orchestra. I don't particularly care for the Scottish Fantasy, a big, overblown, under-inspired, musical hanky parade. But Gil has something special: a way of playing that is so authentic, so lyrical, and so convincing that it can raise this blimp of a piece to new heights. This young man continues to amaze me.
All contents © Copyright 1995, 1996 by Redmon Barbry ¶ 10:14 AM
