IM
(an American citizen with an inquiring mind):
Gentlemen, while the public remains preoccupied with the outcome of the relatively
trivial Zimmerman trial, I’d like to get your view . . .
AM: (an American seasoned combat aviator with an
inquiring mind): Wait a minute. Why do you say trivial?
IM: The trial was about whether Zimmerman was
guilty of some degree of murder or worthy of acquittal for self-defense.
AM: In my view, the trial is far more than a case
of homicide.
Old Gadfly:
I agree, AM. But, why do you say
it is more than homicide?
AM:
Homicide involves one victim.
What we have here is far worse, and it is a manifestation of our last
discussion on the god of progressivism.
IM:
Wow, AM. How so?
AM:
Think about it. Initially, based
on compelling evidence and a good picture of the circumstances, there was no
reason to press charges. Key players in the criminal investigation were replaced by others, based on political
pressure. Obama elected to interject the
full weight and power of his position when he declared “if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon.” Was it coincidental that the white sheriff,
who did not charge Zimmerman with any crime, was replaced by a black city manager with a black sheriff, who immediately
charged Zimmerman? Ironically,
Zimmerman’s parents were white and Hispanic.
Yet, he’s been judged in the court room of public opinion as a white man. Obama had a white mother and a black father.
While there is some doubt about the father, whether from Kenya (as in Barack
Sr.) or from Chicago (as in the Marxist and childhood mentor Frank Davis), he was black. Thus,
Obama, who symbolizes all the oppressed of our nation, is treated as a black
man. These distinctions are important
because they relate back to our discussion on club mentality. In this case, if
you’re black, then you are in the club; if not, then you’re not in the club. In today’s politically correct culture, to
criticize a black (unless you’re a wealthy athlete like Tiger Woods or a
political conservative) for whatever reason is tantamount to racism. If you want confirmation, ask Chris Matthews,
Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson. But to
criticize a white man because he’s white is not. HBO’s
comedians exploit this dynamic with no constraint. It is politically correct bigotry.
IM:
Obviously, Zimmerman’s not-guilty verdict remains unacceptable because
the Justice Department is now considering the pursuit of a federal
charge for a civil rights crime.
AM: Do
you remember the two white reporters attacked by a mob of black men in Virginia
shortly after the Zimmerman-Martin incident?
While I had to dig to find anything on it, I did find a short news clip. Nowhere in the clip are the words
white or black used. I also discovered another local news clip of an incident involving two black teens
assaulting a 50-year old white man . . . this act occurred soon after, and in
the vicinity of, the Zimmerman-Martin incident.
None of this made it to the national media.
IM: Does
our discussing these matters so openly make you feel like we’re committing
blasphemy?
AM: I
keep looking around to see if we’re offending someone.
IM: I
thought it to be peculiar, but not surprising, when the trial judge struck from
the record testimony from the investigating detective. Here’s an excerpt from USA
Today:
Tuesday began with Judge Debra Nelson agreeing to strike
from the record Serino's testimony from the previous day in which he said he
found Zimmerman's account of his fight with Trayvon Martin credible.
Citing case law, Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la
Rionda said his own witness should not have told the jury that he thought
Zimmerman was telling the truth.
Nelson agreed that the jury should decide whether
Zimmerman is telling the truth, and that a police officer's testimony about
truthfulness would be given improper weight by the jury. She told jurors to
disregard the statement.
Old Gadfly:
Political correctness stems from a created truth, not discovered
truth. Watching ABC
News 20/20 the evening of the not guilty verdict, I heard a recap that
talked about how Zimmerman “stalked” and shot Martin, but there was no interest
in examining why Martin was “beating” Zimmerman, nor any mention of a broken
nose or lacerations from a head being bashed onto concrete. Political correctness is insidious and it
operates at the emotional level. To
demonstrate, take a good look at this image I found on the Internet:
There are some key symbols in this
image. On a positive note, I see a
message where the “dream” for which King fought ultimately manifested itself on
the day a black man was inaugurated President of the United States of
America. In this picture, the American
flag symbolizes the American dream.
There is a sinister message as well. Notice this “American dream” symbol separates
King from Obama. This implies another
very powerful message. Do you see what I’m
suggesting?
IM: Yes. King is in the background and Obama is in the
foreground. King fought for individual liberty.
He argued for people to be judged by the content of their character, not
the color of their skin. Obama argues
for collective liberty based on a progressive ideology of hope and change: hope to overcome the evils of class warfare;
and change to establish the institutions needed for the collective liberty of
socialism. While King fought for
justice. Obama fights for social
justice. King wanted all people to
win. Obama picks winner and losers.
AM:
Another implication regarding the concept of character is that Obama and
his lieutenants manipulate characterizations for the purpose of diminishing targeted
people. A massive effort to “characterize”
Romney is a vivid example. Recall that
following the first Presidential debate in August, Obama complained that what
people saw with their own eyes was not the “real
Romney.” Obama’s Saul Alinsky
training is his primary strength—agitate and organize the masses. Make the masses hate those who “appear to
threaten” their security. Then, convince
them with hope so that if they follow the community organizer, good changes
will take place. It worked for V. I. Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chávez,
among the more notable charismatic and power-hungry leaders. But, as we know from history, the masses paid
a severe price and endured great suffering.
Old Gadfly:
The dynamics we are witnessing have been recorded and analyzed earlier
in our lifetimes. Hayek wrote about them
in his book, The Road to Serfdom.[1] He opened Chapter 11, “The End of Truth” with
this quote from E. H. Carr: “It is
significant that the nationalization of thought has proceeded everywhere pari
passu with the nationalization of industry.”[2]
IM: How
does the nationalization of thought and industry relate to the Zimmerman case?
Old Gadfly:
You’ll see the connection shortly.
In totalitarian administrations, centralized control of industry was
critical because industries represented centers of power. Centers of power have significant influence
on individual behavior. Do you see any
signs of attempts to nationalize industry in America?
AM:
Absolutely. First, while subtle,
the General Motors issue was a step in that direction. Creditors
with equity in the company were given a nickel on the dollar. But the union
won massive tax payer subsidization of a bankrupted pension program and a seat
on the board of directors. Obamacare is
another blatant example. Recent maneuvering
clearly indicates a push to maximize the number of individuals in statewide, federally
controlled exchanges to force centralized control of healthcare. Once healthcare is socialized, other
industries will follow suit. There are
efforts already underway with energy.
IM:
That’s eerie. The rallying symbol
for collective liberty in Orwell’s Animal
Farm was a windmill!
AM: As
it happened in Animal Farm, there is
now a concerted effort to suppress opposing thought. Last month, we discussed similar efforts regarding
the Tea Party and other conservative groups in the IRS scandal. Why is it that
only Fox News is speaking out about
it?
Old Gadfly:
Certainly the silence from other media venues is not unprecedented. You
both are old enough to remember Nikita Khruschev, who followed Stalin as the
totalitarian leader of the Soviet Union.
Years ago, in the 80s, I read an interesting article authored by the
noted leadership scholar, Warren Bennis, who described an event where Khruschev
spoke to reporters at the American Press Club.
The reporters asked questions on note cards passed to a moderator. The first written question
was: ''Today you talked about the hideous rule of your predecessor, Stalin. You
were one of his closest aides and colleagues during those years. What were you
doing all that time?'' Khruschev's face grew red. ''Who asked that?'' he
roared. No one answered. ''Who asked
that?'' he insisted. Again, silence. ''That's what I was doing,'' Mr. Khruschev
said.[3]
IM: There are too many reporters being silent as
the current Administration blatantly bullies opponents of its progressive agenda.
AM: And they may be getting away with it as the
American population of Copernican
drones appears to be growing in numbers.
Jay Leno regularly demonstrates this with Jaywalk interviews.
Old Gadfly:
Sometimes people do not see danger, even when it is presenting
sufficient signals, because they have been emotionally programmed through
political correctness not to see it.
Now, let’s get back to the connection between
the Zimmerman-Martin incident, and Carr’s observation about nationalized
thought and industry. Here is direct
quote of the first paragraph in Chapter 11 of Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom:
The most
effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends toward which
the social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends. To make a totalitarian system function
efficiently, it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the
same ends. It is essential that the
people should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be chosen for the
people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs, a generally
accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible act spontaneously
in the way the planner wants. If the
feeling of oppression in totalitarian countries is in general much less acute
than most people in liberal countries imagine, this is because the totalitarian
governments succeed to a high degree in making people think as they want them
to.[4]
IM: The connection makes sense. The nationalization of thought, in this case
to spontaneously react to racism, appears to dominate the public
narrative.
AM: Unfortunately, a real threat to our security--
the radical ideology that attracts mostly young men to terrorism--is being
stifled even among those we count on to defeat this threat. What are your thoughts about the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mrtin Dempsey’s criticism and punishment of Army Lieutenant
Colonel Dooley, who was on assignment by the Army to teach a course on radical
Islam at the Armed Forces Staff College?
Old
Gadfly: General Dempsey’s action is a
great disappointment. He is a silent Khruschev
nearly 30 years later. There are many
Americans, to include Dempsey, who could be authentic and effective leaders—they
simply must not be silent when they see threats to the truth. Dempsey and others like him would be well-served
to follow the advice of James Webb, a U.S. Naval Academy graduate, marine, Vietnam
veteran, Secretary of the Navy, U.S. Senator, and author. Following the Navy’s “Tailhook” scandal in
1992, Webb claimed:
A vacuum has emerged where the Navy used to
have a spine. It was evident in the Tailhook investigation, termed a cover-up
by the Pentagon inspector general, that should have been resolved quickly and
without sweeping damnation. It is evident today, as the Navy is being maligned
and diminished before our eyes.
Where
are the senior admirals?
We
measure the greatness of institutions by their resilience and tenacity under
stress. These traits are manifested through leaders who were imbued, as they
made their way up the promotional ladder, with a solemn duty to preserve
sacrosanct ideals and pass them on to succeeding generations. A true leader
knows that this obligation transcends his own importance, and must outlast his
individual tour of duty.
In
the military the seemingly arcane concepts of tradition, loyalty, discipline
and moral courage have carried the services through cyclical turbulence in
peace and war. Their continuance is far more important than the survival of any
one leader. It is the function of the military's top officers to articulate
that importance to the civilian political process. And an officer who allows a
weakening of these ideals in exchange for self-preservation is no leader at all.
AM: Until we have leaders with a spine and the
willingness to fight for the ideals our American flag symbolizes, our nation
faces a similar vacuum and the end of truth.
IM: Recalling our last discussion on the
god of progressivism in light of today’s conversation brings to my mind
John 14:6.
Old
Gadfly: You really connected the dots
with that one, IM! Thank you for not
being silent. I look forward to our next
conversation.
[1] F. A.
Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, (Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press,
2007 [originally published 1944)
[2] E. H.
Carr, The Twenty Years Crisis,
1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study
of International Relations, (London:
Macmillan, 1940), p. 172.
[3] Warren E. Bennis, “The Dilemma at the
Top; Followers Make Good Leaders Good,” The
New York Times, December 31, 1989.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/31/business/the-dilemma-at-the-top-followers-make-good-leaders-good.html
[4] Hayek, p. 171.
[5] James Webb, “Witch Hunt in the Navy,”
The New York Times, October 6,
1992. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/06/opinion/witch-hunt-in-the-navy.html
No comments:
Post a Comment