1. On Human Nature
After being a member of the human race for seventy-three years and observing folks, I have grown cynical. The optimism I once had in my youth—that all people are basically good—has not changed, but because of the dangers in the world and human society, in general, this thought is almost irrelevant. I am not talking about basic crime (murder, robbery, etc). The dangers I’m concerned with are in small, active groups, who, because of political correctness, liberal ideology, or pure complacency, threaten society around them. In many ways the majority has acted timidly against the minority for so long, our enemies (and that’s what they are) have grown strong and arrogant. In so many ways, this minority of malcontents, whether they are rioting in the streets or committing terrorist acts at home and abroad, have fed on society’s compassion and lack of resolve. The latest threat to our species, fanatical Jihadists, has, of course, deepened my cynicism. Given the fact that a weak and amateurish president was elected when the various Muslim terrorist groups were most active, has made the problem much worse, but the problem has been here for a long time. It occurred to me that two general trains of thought—pragmatic and atheistic ideology and religion (which ironically oppose each other) have laid the groundwork for the disaster facing the world.
It has been either the absence of the moral guidance of faith seen in ideologues, seen in the social engineering of the Nazis and Communists or the fanatical elements of religion, witnessed throughout history that have been the greatest threat. The Holocaust caused by the Nazis and the mass purges of the Communists must be weighed against the slaughter caused during the Crusades, Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, and recent excesses of Christian sects. Then, as now, the majority stood by and allowed a minority of sociopaths or fanatics take control. Looking back at these troubled times, governments, including our own, have overcompensated. The sins of the fathers has weighed heavily on the sons and daughters, who shy away from condemning extremism, and in so doing, have encouraged riots, terror, and overbearing attitude of totalitarian regimes.
The current history of terrorism, which includes the destruction of the twin towers, and a long list of terrorist acts at home and abroad, seem tedious. To the American public and world community, who, through the media and entertainment industry, have become desensitized to human disasters, violence, scandals, political wrangling, the latest sports scores many times take center stage. It took an event like 9-11 and the Boston Bombing to wake them up…. But only momentarily. Now, even with the dreaded ISIS enveloping the Middle East, most folks appear to have grown complacent again…. Why is this? Is there some deep philosophical reason? Or does it boil down to the most basic elements in human nature: complacency and apathy. On the surface, at least, the notion, “It’s not effecting me. What do I care?”, appears to be the general consensus. Frankly, I still think most folks do care and are intrinsically good. The majority of them, however, are complacent more than apathetic. What the majority shares with each other is an unwillingness to act decisively and inability, because of political parties, to act correctly. Politics, whether Democrat or Republic blind them. Too many of them are taken with the cult of personality, over substance, which is the chief reason why so many incompetent politicians are elected to office. With a herding instinct they follow their party. Others, of course, don’t vote; there only concern is what’s in front of them. Yet, whether on the public dole, politically motivated, or hedonists, who simply don’t care, it doesn’t matter. In the bigger picture, faced with global terrorism on a scale that staggers the imagination, they’re like cattle being led to the slaughter house…. What will wake them up again?
To answer this question, we must look at the reasons for this complacency and attitude. What motivates most folks?
Recent polls have shown that the Judeo-Christian faith is declining, while the Muslim faith, including the Jihadists radicals, is on the rise. This, like our weak and useless political structure, comes at the worst time. Not only has the birth rate gone drastically down in Europe and less so in the USA, but most people admit to having little or no faith in God. Of course there are many so-called Christians that haven’t helped matters. Those groups waiting and hoping for the end of the world, in fact, might even be encouraged by the signs and portents of today. This essay is not intended for Doomsday, Rapture-oriented, born again, fundamentalists anymore than those close-minded ideologues who think that only their own philosophies are correct. Those individuals who see the events happening as a blessing and proof that they are the elect I respect for what they believe, but they offer no solution to what is wrong in the current world. What I applaud all Christians and right-minded atheists for, however, is that they live by a set of moral standards. Whether we call these standards the Ten Commandments or common decency is not important. What is important now is that our world is confronted with minorities intent on the destruction of our way of life. What we need is resolve….Where has this resolve gone? Why has the majority become so self-centered—each man and women an island to themselves? I believe that the attitude of the Me First Generation and decline of faith in God and/or human goodness are at the root of the problem. So goes the individual, so goes the world.
In addition to enabling parents, are the media and education. Parents (another subject altogether), of course, are the earliest point at which children’s attitude go awry. Suffice it to say, the environment therein is often a strong causal factor. In addition to lack of parental supervision, abuse, and neglect, Children, a growing number in broken homes, are strongly influenced by the programming on television and their zombie-like love of ipad and computer games. They hear the same propaganda their parents hear and, despite so-called filtering of programming, are bombarded with negativity in what they watch and the games they play. In the classroom, students are also influenced. They are given revisionist history, which has turned the hard facts of history into social commentary. Students are shown alternate lifestyles, alternate perspectives of society, and alternate ways of viewing the world. It’s right that they be taught tolerance for others and good values, but there is, along with the desensitizing effect of television, a watering down of basic values for the sake of fairness to the various groups and a playing down of America’s greatness in order to show inequality, that is increasingly exaggerated. I was shocked when I read a high school history book. One would think we started World War Two! The result of this media/scholastic education is twofold: children are being taught to be doubters and pacifists. Is it any wonder that most young men and women avoid joining the military and many politicians, particularly liberals, are anti-military in thought? Our system is growing a crop of future planners and leaders who don’t have the necessary resolve or will to face evil. Because of what they learn at home and how they are influenced by the electronic media, educational, in many ways, is merely the final corrupter of youth….How can we blame them for what we allow to happen. What kind of world are we preparing them for?
Added to these swaying forces, second only to family life, is what Hollywood and the liberal media has done to influence attitudes in children and the general television audience. What do we—the young and old—see each night on television? In addition to some solid programs and unbiased newscasts, there is a plethora of unsavory dramas, portraying the worst elements of human nature. It appears as if the majority of movies and television drama prefer the anti-hero, tainted but lovable, over the white knight or white-hat cowboy. I have noticed a few series who dare show the real world. I’m also impressed with the Christian market unafraid to make a point, but most of the stuff I have seen on cable, the major networks, and even Netflix, is standard Hollywood garbage. Alas, I watch it many times, myself, because there is nothing else to watch. In so doing, I have noted occasional social commentary against our government or stabs at conventional ideas of morality, yet shrug my shoulders. The beauty aid commercials which preach eternal youth to women and men, encouraging elders not to grow old gracefully, the performance drugs such as Viagra, which make all men studs, and the hundreds of online college programs that have watered down higher education, are merely symptoms of the times. In general, sexual mores and right-thinking behavior have been reinterpreted by Hollywood and the liberal media. In many ways the old values no longer count. To even criticize obvious perversions of Christian and general ethic values, might make us racists, bigots and homophobes.
What is most troubling, though, is the personal complacency and apathy of folks in the United States and the world at large. For fear of political correctness, no one wants to face facts. Except for a few my own neighbors who tell it how it is, the only place where I hear a kernel of truth is on Fox News, America One News, and conservative radio talk shows. Since the vast majority of cable and network news is devoted to liberal thought, the youth of our day and the American public are desensitized and often fed happy stories or skewed data about the world. The worst fault of the liberal news, however, is what is left out. The president, who must share a great deal of blame for the malaise and lack of respect we have in world, is seldom scolded. On the other hand those challenging the evils of our day, are vilified by the liberal news.
As a result of what the government, education, the media, and enabling parents have done, the current generation appears impotent against evil and the next generation will be mentally unprepared to confront the oncoming threat.
2. The Myths of Our Day
How many theories have become God’s honest truth? Newton’s Law of Gravity is one truth. What comes up must come down—right? Another law—for each action there is an equal reaction, is another scientific truth. There are, in fact, many such laws, most of which are common sense and can be scientifically proven. An apple falling off the tree, a bumper crumpled in a fender-bender are plain facts. Those laws proven in a laboratory are more difficult to prove but are just as true. Among the theories that come close to laws is the theory of evolution, and yet, in spite of the fossil record, it’s not called the Law of Evolution but the Theory of Evolution. Some so-called scientific truths, however, are not even solid theories, and yet they are offered by enthusiastic astrophysicists, astronomers, and National Geographic and the Discovery Channels as “God’s honest truth.” Included in this group area archeologists too. Four questionable theories, which irk me the most, lack solid foundation: (1) The Big Bang, (2) The Comet Killed The Dinosaurs, (3) Global Warming, and (4) Extraterrestrials Created The Pyramids.
According to this theory, which is presented in classrooms as well as the media, all matter was once condensed into an object as small or smaller than an atom. The reason for this absurd premise is quite simple, at least on the blackboard or computer: the Big Bang required a beginning point. After all, scientists reason, all things must have a beginning. This meant it had to be very, very tiny. There is, of course, no way of proving this. This means it will never be more than a theory and, for that matter, never a scientific law or truth. According to the Big Bang theory, during the moment of singularity, our vast universe was a tiny point in a featureless void. Upon ignition, this point exploded into what we see as the visible, ever-expanding universe. Along with the shaky start to this theory (the tiny atom), there are inconsistencies in the current status of the so-called expanding universe too complicated for this essay. Suffice it to say, A major flaw is that the Big Bang runs contrary to the first law of thermodynamics, which states that matter can’t be created nor destroyed.
It’s quite all right with me that scientists present this flawed theory, but it is quite another matter that they present it as a scientific truth. Even in the grade schools, the same teachers teaching social doctrine to our children and making fun of Creationism, are presenting the Big Bang Theory as fact, rather than theory.
The evidence that a comet wiped out the dinosaurs appears to lie within the fossil record, itself. A level of iridium in the rocks which coexists with the Late Cretaceous and what seems the sudden disappearance the dinosaurs are the two factors that allegedly prove this theory. The most obvious problem with the theory is the selectivity of the killer comet. Why did the comet kill the dinosaurs and not the other forms of animal life. The ammonite also disappeared during this interval. Where they wiped out by the comet. If so, in both instances, why weren’t clams, fish, and squids killed. And why were crocodiles (some of them quite large), early mammals, and birds not wiped out? Added to this problematical theory are examples of dinosaur fossils found above the iridium layer and the most current findings by geologists that the iridium layer (referred to as the K-T boundary) actually occurred after the sixty-five million year mark that has been considered the so-called end point for the dinosaurs on earth.
As in the case of the Big Bang, this theory is often presented in classrooms, text books, and the media as fact, not simply one theory, among others, for dinosaur extinction, but the cause for dinosaur extinction is still open for debate. The hype given this theory on the Discovery and National Geographic channels is fodder for critics. Unfortunately, the animated presentations of this theory on television only serve to show how far practical science has swerved into theoretical and questionable zones, bordering on junk science.
One of the most irksome of quack theories is the theory of global warming. The same president who shied away from global conflict at the sake of our national security and inflicted a disastrous healthcare system on his country, spent much of his time trying to sell this theory. In lock step were green peace members, scientists, and a minority of faithful supporters. Fortunately for the American people, this is the least popular of the theories. As the theory goes, industrial pollution and general greenhouse gas from household and vehicle pollutants has caused the climate to change, which, in turn, is melting the ice caps. That the phenomena of climate change is a reality is not questioned. What is questioned is the cause. According to a growing list of scientists, climate change is cyclical, occurring as do ice ages, at intervals, regardless of man made pollution. No one will argue about how such pollutants affect human health. China, one of the worst offenders, cares not a wit for global warming but the United States and many European countries have gone overboard with environmental laws. It’s not enough that industry is taxed and gasoline prices soar due to the presidents unwillingness to drill for oil, environmental laws are now in the realm of lunacy. France and Japan are using breeder reactors, and we worry about drilling and fracking! Neither hydraulic or solar power has filled the vacuum left in unused oil producing land in the United States and other countries. Our country and other nations could produce jobs and greatly help their economies, but the environmental wackos, another minority working against the greater society’s good, appear to have had the final say.
Among the worst propagandists, as seen in movies and television dramas, are found in Hollywood.
3. Hollywood and the Liberal Media’s Version of The Truth
Recently, I heard an actor threaten to sue a reporter for uncovering truth about his ancestors. Freedom of speech, which Hollywood practices to a perverse level, was not the issue for him. He seems to have forgotten it entirely. It turns out that his ancestors had slaves. He was going to sue the villainous reporter for outing him. Hello, Mr. Affleck. My ancestors owned slaves too. I disapprove of the institution. It was a terrible time. But these are historical facts. My ancestors also fought in the Revolutionary War and served in the Union Army, but if they had been red coats or rebels I wouldn’t have cared. The sins of the father’s don’t apply. Affleck’s attempt is but a microcosm of what Hollywood is doing to history and the truth. How many times have you watched recent historical movies and detected messages of some sort embedded in the plot: a mixture of revisionist history and outright lies? The purpose of this distortions is combination propaganda and political correctness. Too often facts they don’t approve of are misconstrued or left out entirely (guilt by omission), all for the sake of giving the public their version of the truth and being politically correct.
Did you know President Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was the puppet of a right-wing conspiracy of Southern militarists alarmed by Kennedy’s secret plans to get out of Vietnam? Did you know that AIDS epidemic is the product of capitalist greed in the pharmaceutical industry? And how about Ronald and Nancy Reagan racism in treating black butlers in the White House? These are among the many myths portrayed in Hollywood films. No matter that it was proven that Kennedy was killed by a lone assassin, the AIDS epidemic in Africa is believed to have caused by a mutant strain of virus, and that is was Democratic President Johnson, not the amiable Reagans, who was a White House racist in the twentieth century. Southern militarists, capitalist, and President Reagan and his wife were Republicans. That was reason enough to alter the plot. If you didn’t know about these lies, you haven’t been learning American history from Hollywood films. Unfortunately millions of Americans do in fact get their history lessons from Hollywood, not from school books, which, alas, are part of the problem. If not from educators, they get their facts from the media, often in league with the Hollywood set. The other two evils, however, are more subtle. Hollywood is no longer subtle as they twist and corrupt history.
Other than the desire to change the moral structure of society, Hollywood’s agenda acts on an obvious political level. In most cases, the emphasis on television and the silver screen, in fact, is political correctness. The themes are painfully familiar: The following list of twenty examples of political correctness are just a sampling of Hollywood and the liberal media have twisted logic and history to conform to what they think is “right thinking:”
In many films there are no good or bad guys—only anti-heroes, whose shady pasts and actions are dramatized. In Hollywood’s eyes this stereotype is true for both men and women and includes children as sympathetic juvenile delinquents. Human behavior is explained not in a good or evil sense but with psychological and surrealistic overtones. Often we are left at the end of a drama with wondering just who was the good guy. Bad manners and character defects are often represented in movies and television drama as cool and admirable. A subcategory of stereotyping is seen in how Black actors are portrayed. According to Hollywood, all Black Americans have feisty attitudes, which are cool and correct (at least on the screen). I have several black neighbors, who resent the gangster rappers and smart-alecks represented in comedies and serious drama. The former stereotypes are simply incorrect, but I think this stereotype borders on bigotry and racism.
Each flaw in human nature is justified on the screen. Sex outside of marriage is normal, especially for wives whose husbands don’t pay enough attention to them. Husbands/wives and, for that matter, boyfriends/girlfriends are often portrayed comically as playful philanderers to unsuspecting mates. Dramas not only exhibit accepted moral lapses for husbands, wives, daughters, and sons but deviant behavior between same sex couples as perfectly normal. This trend overlooks the fact that most Americans disapprove of the moral climate. Because of political correctness, however, they’re afraid to admit this. Plots, such as same sex couples adopting children and even surrogating them, is common, as if this is right and proper. Perhaps in the twenty-first century this might be true, but they also portray them as cheating on each other and getting divorces as in heterosexual couples. In general, therefore, whether or not it is heterosexual or homosexual misconduct, Hollywood has given the green light and appears to encourage this kind of behavior.
Though institutions go haywire on their own, the media—written, screen, and digital—have pressured and even shamed many of these institutions into walking the line. Hollywood and the liberal media have even influenced the US Army. The new Army manual instructs soldiers to not criticize anything related to Islam. In light of what happened to Army base in Texas when a rabid Jihadists murdered several people and the current ISIS threat, this is quite unrealistic.
The list of politically correct measures is quite long. Some are completely absurd.
(1) The Missouri State Fair permanently banned a rodeo clown from performing because he wore an Obama mask, and now all of the other rodeo clowns are being required to take sensitivity training. How many times, in parades and on television have we seen Nixon, Bush, and even Clinton masks paraded.
(2) A Florida police officer recently lost his job for calling Trayvon Martin a “thug” on Facebook. Perhaps he should have called him a misunderstood youth. Regardless, firing him for using one word that has no racial connotations is an example of how society will bend over backwards to be politically correct.
(3) Those who disagree with the current climate change theory that global warming ins manmade, according to Secretary of State Sally Jewel, aren’t welcome in the Department of the Interior. This was undoubtedly influenced by the current environmentalist president.
(4) A professor at Ball State University was recently banned from mentioning the concept of intelligent design because it would supposedly violate the academic integrity of the course that he was teaching.
(5) The mayor of Washington D.C. recently asked singer Donnie McClurkin not to attend because of his views on homosexuality.
(6) U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer called upon athletes marching in the opening ceremonies at the Winter Olympics in Sochi next year to embarrass Russian President Vladimir Putin by protesting for gay rights. After everything Putin has done to threaten world peace, this is the best Schumer can do?
(7) Chaplains in the U.S. military are being forced to perform gay marriages, even if it goes against their personal religious beliefs. The few chaplains that have refused to follow orders know that it means the end of their careers. This is one of those cased were it might be a good idea to “roll with the punches,” but I respect those chaplains courage.
(8) The governor of California has signed a bill into law, which will allow transgender students to use whatever bathrooms and gym facilities that they would like. In addition to this ruling, transgender students in California will now have the right to join either the boys’ or girls’ sports teams, thanks to landmark legislation signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. The law amends the state’s education code, and stipulates that each student will have access to facilities, sports teams, and programs that are “consistent with his or her gender identity,” rather than the student’s actual biological composition. A male student who self-identifies as female could therefore use the girls’ bathroom, even if he is anatomically male. This overlooks general students rights. Another case, not only of political correctness, but placating a small minority against the well of the majority.
(9) In San Francisco, authorities have installed small plastic privacy screens on library computers so that perverts can continue to exercise their “right” to watch pornography at the library without children being directly exposed to it. What else could we expect from his town? This is the same town that is a sanctuary city to illegal immigrants.
(10) This is one of the worst examples of political correctness: In America today, there are many groups that are absolutely obsessed with eradicating every mention of God from the public sphere. For example, an elementary school in North Carolina ordered a little six-year-old girl to remove the word God from a poem that she wrote to honor her two grandfathers that had served in the Vietnam War. A high school track team was disqualified earlier this year because one of the runners made a gesture thanking God once he had crossed the finish line. Florida Atlantic University student that refused to stomp on the name of Jesus was banned from class. A student at Sonoma State University was ordered to take off a cross that she was wearing because someone could be offended. A teacher in New Jersey was fired for giving his Bible to a student that didn’t own one. Volunteer chaplains for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department have been banned from using the name of Jesus on government property. The Obama administration banned all U.S. government agencies from producing any training materials that link Islam with terrorism. In fact, the FBI has gone back and purged references to Islam and terrorism from hundreds of old documents. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals because it has a disproportionate impact on minorities. Once again, we come face-to-face with political correctness of the illegal alien program.
(11) California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill hat will allow large numbers of illegal immigrants to legally get California driver’s licenses. The impact of this makes me shudder.
(12) Over seventy-five percent of the babies born in Detroit are born to unmarried women, yet it is considered to be “politically correct” to suggest that there is anything wrong with that. The fact that the vast majority of the women are black might have influenced this attitude.
(13) Five students in a California High School were sent home for wearing shirts displaying an American flag on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo. What is obviously unfair about this can be found the Constitution. But of course it’s not the same when, all year long, Mexican American student fan wear shirts displaying the Mexican flag.
(14) A judge down in North Carolina has ruled that it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to offer license plates that say choose life on them.
(15) The number of gay characters on television is at an all time high. This would be all right if it wasn’t so completely disproportionate to the heterosexual population. More importantly, is the fact that there are barely any obvious Christian characters to be found on television or in the movies. If they do happen to show up they are almost always portrayed in a very negative light. I’ve noticed this on British programs such as Midsomer Mysteries, but this overriding trend in television and the movies is a prime example of how ludicrous political correctness and pandering to minorities can become.
(16) Believe it or not in our country, the term “manhole” is being replaced with the terms “utility hole” or “maintenance hole”. This is just plan silly.
(17) All over America, liberal commentators are now suggesting that football has become “too violent” and “too dangerous” and that it needs to be substantially toned down. In fact, one liberal columnist for the Boston Globe is even proposing that football should be banned for anyone under the age of 14. I would go so far as to say that children should play only touch football, but banning the game outright is going to the extremes. To tone down football could mean insuring that player have frequent medical checkups and keeping an eye on players who have too many misshaps, but most games, baseball and hockey included, are inherently dangerous. Baseballs and hockey sticks can be lethal, as are race cars, skiing, sky-diving, and any other sport.
(16) Even Biblical movies now have to be politically correct. A recent series, entitled A.D., presented John, the disciple and Mary Magdalene as black. I believe that black actors haven’t been used enough in major themes, but John and Mary Magdalene were Jews. The reason for having these roles being filled with black actors can only be attributed to political correctness or stupidity.
Enough said. What rankles me the most is what seems like a form of social engineering. No one should persecute gays and certainly not minorities, but facts are facts. It seems as though Hollywood and the liberal media wants the public to believe that blacks are as bad off today as they were in the fifties. This simply isn’t true. Our president worsened the problem with tactless responses to unfortunate but not universal police misconduct. Instead of calming the situation, he grandstanded again to bolster his legacy. As for gay rights, by now a large majority of the American people have accepted the laws as fait accompli. Even the Supreme Court support of gay marriage is not an important issue with most Americans, and yet the pro-gay lifestyle subject matter Hollywood adds to its movies and television programming is over the top. I’m sorry, I don’t like to see two homosexuals going at it in a television series (witness “How To Commit the Perfect Murder”). Of course, I think some of the heterosexual scenes are unseemly too, as witnessed in countless movies and television dramas. The point is, Hollywood, whether consciously or subconsciously, appears to have its own agenda. Do they want to subvert the public with contrived historical facts? Do they wish to corrupt the public’s morals? Or do they, in a more general sense, want to move us all further to the left, so we can be one big happy crowd.
Alas, Hollywood, like the liberal media, feels that they know best. Though there are solid examples of objective history, true-to-life drama, and fair treatment of groups, it appears that most producers, directors, and actors are unable to avoid hot button issues that many times riles the American public. Shock value is important in horror, crime, and melodramas. The problem with the public’s reaction is that it usually never goes beyond the living room. It’s that “Oh well, there they go again!” attitude. Folks expect Hollywood to behave badly at times, in the same way they expect their current government to overtax us for its social programs and attempts to indoctrinate us into a new, European model of the socialist state. An election may change the equation somewhat. A new president may reject the way things are, but he won’t have Hollywood or the liberal media on his or her side. Hollywood, after all, knows best!
The examples I have shown are but a small number from an ongoing list of political correctness measures practiced in our country. It would be hard to overstate the power that all of this relentless “thought training” has on all of us. Young people are particularly susceptible to the power of suggestion. A recent video, now removed from You Tube (probably because of administration pressure) actually showed a little boy praying to Barack Obama as if he was God. Considering the Messianic attitude of Obama, the implications of this example of thought training can’t be overstated. However, the vast majority of propaganda is more subtle. It occurs in movies, television drama and normal programming. The power of the mainstream media and Hollywood is huge. Americans watch an average of 153 hours of television a month, from liberal newscasts to Netflix movies. When Americans go to work or go to school, the conversations that they have with others are often based on content that the media feeds them. And about 90 percent of what we watch on television is controlled by just six gigantic corporations. But the media is not the only source that is telling us what to think. The truth is that the messaging that comes from all of our major institutions (the government, the media, the and educational system,) is remarkably consistent. The these agencies, whether governmental or private, want to control what we say and how we think. They have a relentless propaganda machine that never stops working.
Hollywood, the media, and the government have been greatly influenced by the left-wing president, who envisions our country as another example of European socialism (or worse). The way that we all see the world has been greatly influenced by the thousands of hours of thought training that we have all received over the years. To break free of this hold, we should understand exactly what is being done to our children and ourselves. We must reject Hollywood, the media, and the government’s revisionist history, political correctness and false interpretation of the truth. We must ask always questions, doubt absurd conclusions, and find out the truth on our own. Blind trust is what led the Europeans to vote in politicians and laws that have harmed their economies and made them slaves to socialist systems. Because of their cradle-to-grave welfare states most Europeans, and a growing number of Americans, appear to prefer handouts and being on the government dole. As the majority, we must resist this poisonous trend.
When I was a kid we didn’t have computers. We didn’t even have calculators, and television was still a new thing. Boys were boys and girls were girls. The boys played cowboys and Indians, soldiers, baseball, and countless roughneck games. The girls played hopscotch and many girlish games. They had dolls. We had guns. There were no sexy Barbie dolls. The dolls looked like babies, not babes, The guns weren’t light sabers and children didn’t play violent computer games that desensitized them to aggression and death. The lines weren’t blurred as in Plants and Zombies, Mine Craft, etc. We fired cap guns at each other. We knew who the bad guys were.
Now-a-days, at least in most ways, boys are still boys and girls are still girls, but there is an unsettling trend, caused by Hollywood, the media, and the government, itself, that no longer respects the traditional roles of male and female. Openly now, boys can be girls and girls can be boys. There is a softening of the male persona in step with a feminist trend to make females more aggressive. On the face of it, this appears to be a good thing, especially to liberals and gay activists. People have the right to vote for individuals, who have a feminist or pro-gay agenda. For that matter, no one has the right to discriminate against a person for his sexual lifestyle unless he or she flaunts it in public. I believe that these groups deserve the same rights that I do. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. But now, with the social engineering programming subtly played in cartoons, children’s’ programming in general, and adult themes that are shown at all hours of the day, boys and girls are bombarded with the same propaganda that adults receive. Unfortunately, they are much less equipped to filter out harmful subject matter. There is a conflicting mixture of anti-American messages (in movies and television), super-macho reality shows, social engineering dogma (in both adult and children’s programs) that stress pacifistic and effeminate thought, self-love commercials, violent and/or sexually explicit dramas and movies, and children’s games that, apart of making them mental zombies, desensitize them and give them an unrealistic grasp of aggression and death.
The exercise trend, in which everyone must have firm abs and butts and look perfect and the makeup commercials in which all women are told to remain forever young, would seem to be a good thing. People should take care of themselves and look their best. Unfortunately, this mindset has gone to extremes. Dieting, health foods, exercise techniques, and sexual performance drugs—all to make us better humans, have coalesced into a picture of eternal youth and happiness that perpetuates the me-first mentality. Contrasting this, of course, is the propaganda given to children in school and the media that challenges their sexual identity. Attempts are being made to make restrooms in schools, as they already are in portions of the public sector, unisexual. There are, in fact, countless examples of education and government’s attempt to neutralize the normal roughneck behavior of boys. More important to social engineers is what they see as the common good—everyone must get along and everyone is the same, a notion in sharp contrast to self-love and individualistic commercials and programs on television.
Children are taught to be individuals—tough and reassured, a notion which is torn down by teachers and politicians, who prefer a pacifistic and feminizing attitude toward the world. The “me-first” mentality, which can be carried too far, too, is actually a threat to modern thinking. These conflicting currents are confusing even to adults. Is it any wonder that so many socio-paths are sprouting up? Growing up to be man and growing up to be a lady—still strong among the conservative mindset is under siege. Should we be surprised that not only adults but children are jumping out of the closet and that there’s a surge in cross-dressing and gender transformation?
What was once considered taboo is now promoted and what once promoted is now condemned. Family and Christian values are constantly challenged by feminist and gay right activists. The re-defining of marriage, which was given legal status by the Supreme Court, the adoption and surrogate births provided to gay couples, and the propaganda fed to children of all ages in text books and lectures on this subject have added to the corrupting and confusing influences of television, movies, and games, which are more dimensions of chaos for kids. Recently, to placate feminist and gay rights groups, an effort was even made to change the word He in the Bible to “it.” Can you envision Genesis 1:31 changed to “God saw all that it had made, and it was very good…” or (from the Temptation of Christ in the NT): “After fasting forty days and forty nights, it was hungry. The tempter came to it and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” Did the revisionists plan to change the title Son of God to Offspring of God? How insane is that! Fortunately, this notion, which is an example of social engineering, is too extreme even for most liberals, but there are countless other examples of education, the media, and the government’s attempt to socialize our thinking as well as our pocket books in order to make a peaceful, placating world.
What are children to think of the chaos in entertainment, the news, and government policy? How can they sift through this mass of conflicting messages? Who can blame them for retreating to their computer games and super hero icons? Unless the society around them changes its game, the only hope I can see is for social engineers to tone down and manipulate the violence and false messaging in games…. And this form of thought control is quite dreadful too!
leaked to the newspaper offers a list of “taboo and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”
4. The Medium’s Game
I have come to the conclusion, based upon personal observation and online investigation, that a large segment of people are naturally gullible. I believe that this is based upon a desire to know what lies beyond—a reassurance that death is not the end. It is also a desperate attempt by seekers to connect with loved ones, many times out of guilt for how the decease were treated when alive or because of resentment for how they, themselves, were treated by the deceased. What amazes me is the naivety of both the mediums and their clients. As a Christian (certainly not the best), I believe as many Christians that there is a heaven and hell. There would be no justice in life if we simply didn’t exist after death or, if we make it through the pearly gates, have to share space with criminals and undesirables who belong in hell. Personally, I think those great criminals of history, such as Hitler and Stalin deserve a special place of torment, and lesser felons should also go to hell. Perhaps, as Dante’s Inferno exhibits, it would be a lesser place of torment for these minor criminals. If, as liberal Christians believe, there is no hell, and bad people simply don’t cross over, which is eternal death, this would seem unfair to non-believers. Even liberal Christians require belief for entry to heaven. It’s basic to most forms of Christianity. It appears as if all those people I’ve known in the past who where atheists or agnostics are going to wind up eternally dead, along with mass murderers and sundry miscreants. I’m sorry, I still opt for something like Dante’s Inferno. Simply not believing doesn’t rate hell. To oblige liberal Christians, who have the force of Biblical Scripture on their side, I would add one more level to Dante’s model for non-believers, who reject God and are unrepentant: eternal death. What, you might ask, does this have to do with mediums, psychic, and ghost-seekers?… Aside from the fakery involved, it is the main reason why I have contempt for this practice.
Going to heaven as a reward for believing in God, which Christians, Jews, and Muslims, except in various degrees, is one of things absent from the medium and psychic games. Entry into the “Other Side,” as they sometimes call heaven, doesn’t require faith. Many of the deceased, I have gathered, had questionable, sometimes outrageous lives, and several committed suicide, an action which is considered by believers to be a rejection of God. But, alas, mediums seldom even mention the word God. In their scheme, it appears that anyone can go to heaven. The medium and their clients’ naivety is almost childlike, and, for the mediums, I might add devious. Those practitioners, who claim to communicate with the dead, may or may not believe they have this gift, but they should at least understand the concept of heaven. To please their clients, they always give glowing reports from the Other Side. No matter what sort of individual they were when alive, they’re happy in the “Light.” In fact, I’ve yet to hear one negative report or one unhappy spirit.
Even if they could communicate with the dead in the next world, there is something else illogical about their game. What if Aunt Bertha or Uncle Bob were, in fact, in heaven? Could one air-headed psychic call them from the Pearly Gates? Everything I have been told and read about demonstrates that heaven is a one way trip. The exceptions, according to tradition, is that twilight zone for those people who have died and either don’t know it or can’t accept it enough to cross over (an absolutely absurd notion). For those of us more conservative Christians, who believe in a literal Hell: What if some of the people I’ve known merited Hell? I cringe at the thought, but some of them weren’t very nice people. Could a medium invoke them from the dark side?
When you consider the clients and audience during sessions, many of whom may not have a strongly rooted faith, it is easier to see how mediums can pull it off. To a non-Christian, agnostic, atheist, or uneducated believer, the discrepancies I mentioned may not even matter. More than anything, the medium requires human desperation. For the naïve and unsophisticated, who are guilt ridden, angry, lonely, or simply curious, it is a leap of faith. Despite the lack of logic and discontinuities in the medium’s art, their clients want to believe. This desire by the client is what mediums play upon.
Now, after discussing the mindset of the medium, I come to the question of their methods. They are the same tricks used by mentalist and psychics plying their arts. I’ve read about their episodes and studied the most current mediums on television, and there is an unsettling pattern.
Recently, I watched a medium perform a classic medium trick. It was based upon an age old formula. I won’t name the show. I might be sued for slander, but I’m sure many of you will know who I’m talking about. She walked into a store, apparently one she had never been in, and communicated with a clerk’s long lost father. What struck me as peculiar was the way she fished for the “right answer.” A question directed at the customers and clerks in the store was simply “Someone suffered a loss recently. I feel a presence…” A young woman stepped forward and piped, “My father. He died a few years ago.” The medium clapped her hands with delight. The cameraman filming the segment of her television program zoomed in on the woman’s face, then panned to the medium, who had taken on a posture of concern. What they didn’t show were the skeptical looks of onlookers in the background. A series of experimental probes followed: “Something about the chest…Was it something about the chest?” She continued to fish. “A heart attack,” the woman replied. “Yes, of course,” the medium grinned triumphantly, “I knew it!” (I could almost hear her say voila!) From there, after throwing out generalized statements (I see a bright shiny car…medals…a stadium filled with people), she convinced the woman, whose father was a car enthusiast, a veteran, and often took her to the stadium to watch baseball, that she had actually communicated with the dead.
A second example, among many I witnessed by this particular medium, was documented by a reporter, who had recently lost her father. She entered the session open-minded but, like many participants, left a skeptic, who, unlike most folks who live quiet lives, aired her view. At first she was convinced that the medium was the genuine article. From the Other Side, the medium found, after a typical fishing expedition, a message pleasing to her client. She was, of course, telling her exactly what she wanted to hear. With the opening statement that she had visited the woman’s father, she described him as a veteran, who liked to cook—facts that might apply to many men. One of the tactics of mediums is to throw out general statements, hoping that one might generate an expression or verbal response. Like tossing darts at a board, a few are going to stick. The woman’s incredulity was still present until the medium utilized her second tactic. When she told the woman how much her father approved of her successful career, the woman’s face brightened. She elaborated upon this theme, drawing her in by her own enthusiasm and those occasional “facts” that hit home.
After her session with the first woman (the reporter), she appeared in a different segment of the program with an audience, announcing her intention to validate for them that there was an after life. These sort of claims couldn’t be challenged. If they had thought that maybe they had seen the shadow of someone who had died in the halls of their homes, they had. If they heard the voice of their dead loved ones, they we weren’t crazy. (This same logic could be used for Big Foot and ghost sightings.” “The experience is real,” she told them repeatedly.
When the audience was primed and ready, she got down to serious other-worldly business. With her team of microphones and video cameras recording her every move and whom she might speak to, and transmitting their faces on screens to the auditorium and television audience, so that we could all watch the magic up-close, she approached a section in the front of the stage, asking, “Who connects with a brother figure?” (a classic maneuver). Two people immediately raised their hands. She told them that she was channeling the souls of their brothers, which meant that those souls were at peace. “Do you understand that?” she asked, an oft-repeated refrain throughout the night. They nodded. She then moved on to a man who said he had lost his wife to Alzheimer’s disease and told him that she saw the woman jumping up and down, symbolizing that she was free in the afterlife, no longer bedridden. “She doesn’t have Alzheimer’s anymore, do you understand?” She asked. The man nodded. Once again, after a fishing expedition, she is telling someone exactly what they want to hear. Who can challenge this? After this episode, she asked another woman how she could connect with the color mauve, explaining to the audience that she was seeing that woman in a mauve-colored suit or jacket. The woman nodded, saying that her mother had been an executive secretary, but she didn’t remember her wearing such a color, though she could have. Judging by her beaming expression, this seemed good enough for the medium.
Pulling up an empty hook, she smiled, and hurried onto the next fish, calling out blithely, “Why am I connecting with a mother figure over here?” and “How does the number three connect?” Can you see the pattern now? Something is bound to stick. Hands shot up in the audience. “Did you mother work in fashion?” she asked someone, who responded blankly, “My mother was a seamstress.” Again, in spite of falling far short of the definition, this was close enough for the medium. “Perfect!” she cried, as if it was an exact match. Recalling a famous game I play with my grandsons, I could almost hear her say “Bingo!” Puffed up by her success, the medium meandered through the audience, making specific claims, such as “I have a young woman who is telling me she was shot by her boyfriend or spouse.” At this point, as I watched the show, I could imagine how it easy it would be to pick a story like this out of the news. With the gun violence we see in the news today, this was an easy snare. In fact, three members of the audiences stood up excitedly, to claim this spirit as their own. One was okay, but what could she do with three? Perhaps, as a clever fisherman, she felt herself to be in troubled waters, for she appeared to change the subject during this spiritual onslaught.
Walking over to a new section of the audience, she looked down at a woman and her mother, without introduction. “Why do I feel like he drowned?…Someone one’s father?” she asked, clutching her chest. By this clever maneuver, she was relaying that she felt fluid rising in her chest, and that this was the spirit communicating how he had died. The daughter shook her head, muttering that her uncle, not her father, had died, and he hadn’t drowned. In another tactic, which I had not seen in a medium, she refused to move. To do so, would be admitting that she got it wrong; and this particular medium never admitted she was wrong. She explained, as if to defer blame, that the spirit was instructing her now. He wanted to connect (to someone anyone). Having failed with the mother and daughter, she turned to the surrounding people, asking them about the drowning. Then she announced that she wanted to speak with the mother of a young child who had drowned in a backyard pool during a party. The audience were thrilled, for this is the sort of stuff they had come to see. Unfortunately, no one raised their hands. Again, the medium appeared to be in troubled waters. Finally, however, someone threw her a lifeline. A woman admitted that someone she knew had drowned in a river. The medium shook her head. That wasn’t what she was looking for. So she returned to the woman with the dead uncle.
“Well,” the young woman shrugged, “my uncle did have a boat.”
The medium shook her head. That wasn’t it either
As if to help out the medium, the woman added, “He built pools.”
That still wasn’t it. How could the medium make sense out of this? When it looked as if she would move on to another sector of the audience, the mother told the medium how the poor man succumbed. “When he died of pancreatic cancer,” she explained, “his lungs filled up with fluid. “Perfect!” the medium exclaimed… Perfect? I laughed aloud… This is her definition of drowning? To use another cliché, she was grasping at straws.
Throwing out more questions, occasionally adding a specific question, she was met with polite nods, of either agreement or mere acknowledgment. At one point she managed to focus on a grieving mother, who, as it turned out, had lost a grown son.
“Why do I feel like you are holding him when he died?”
When the woman shrugged, she quickly covered herself by saying that this meant that he believes she was always there for him.
“Do you smell him?” She questioned someone else.
This was a peculiar question. Perhaps she misspoke. When there was no response, she immediately clarified that this meant that it seemed as if that person was still there, even though he had passed some time ago. At that point, she told a woman who was mourning her mother that she was seeing “red spots all over her body,” and once more found herself in troubled waters. The woman stated that her mother had had ALS. When the medium gave her a blank look, the woman clarified with “That stands for Lou Gehrig’s disease.” Duh! Again, I could hear the medium saying Voila! or Bingo! “Yes, yes, perfect!” she declared, clasping her well-manicured hands, “a debilitating disease all over the body.” As if that explained everything, she found another subject, a woman, who admitted to being gay, whose father had just died. To win her subject over, the medium told her that her father approved of her lifestyle. This made the woman very happy, implying that the woman hadn’t been certain about this fact. Once more she told someone what they wanted to hear.
On and on, she carried on, moving buoyantly through the audience, fishing for responses, saying silly things, and telling them what they wanted to hear. I remember one statement made by her that summed up what a charlatan she really was. When asked if she ever came into contact with spirits who were not at peace and whether these other souls encountered were in Heaven, she replied “I don’t channel those souls. I only channel souls that walk in God’s white light.” She dodged what I consider one of the flaws and inconsistencies of the medium’s game. After all, mediums, who claim to be receivers of the spiritual world, have no control of who communicates to them. What she is also saying is that all of her spirits are Heaven-bound. It seems to me that a true psychic, who received random signals, should at least be honest about it, unless, of course, it’s all bogus—a form of entertainment like magic and illusion. Why is it that essentially non-religious mediums and their subjects have been able to tap into the spiritual world without faith or prayers, when the greatest evangelists and the Pope, himself, apparently don’t have this gift.
The medium’s patterns and tactics seem obvious to me. Their art is ancient, going back before Simon Magus, a practitioner who challenged Saint Peter. Then, as now, there were people eager to sidestep faith and prayer. Now, in the computer and communication age, these charlatans have a much larger audience. I can’t believe that most of the audience fell for her line. I’m still not certain they did. But there is another, more basic problem. In addition to my belief that mediums hoodwink the public, I am reminded that people will believe what they want to, however irrational it may be. The charismatic personality of a medium or, for that matter, a president, often dazzles their audience, blinding them to the truth. For the president, it depends upon what the networks or cable choose to show. In the case of the medium, the proper editing of tape can eliminate most negative responses. It seems likely that a session might even be discarded by the producers if it goes awry. There are, however still those sometimes subtle and sometimes obvious mishaps, as I have indicated, that show them for what they are: charlatans, playing on the emotions of the public.