You Just Can't Fight Some Things

My 10 year old son came home from Sunday School a few weeks ago and told me that they discussed "taking care of the environment" in their class.  I gave up on fighting such things a good while back.

It is difficult to fight some things, like the mixing of the religion of environmentalism with the religion of Christianity.  I can imagine it now.  "What's wrong with conserving resources?" Or: "Are you FOR polluting the planet?"  Can you see how easy it is to create a strawman out my unwillingness to turn Sunday School classes into another venue for anti-Christian Environmentalism?

That's why I love this commercial.  It portrays a warm pro-life theme that the most caustic and murderous abortion advocate of them all would not dare challenge.  (though I would be surprised if the management of Publix are anything but pro-abort liberals)



Hat tip Neil

You Must Connect The Dots. Here, I'll Help

Who is the left?  Put simply, it is a conglomerate of groups of people who have coalesced around one grievance or another.  "Everyone has a grievance", you say.  Well, true, but not everyone internalizes their grievance and turns it into a religion. Those who have, however, join with others and then become a giant conglomerate of victims that we call leftists, or Democrats.  Since left means more government control, it is only natural that leftist would love government, for government is the one entity that can make everything right.

There's only one problem.  Man's existence is imperfect.  He is fallen. He has been evicted from Eden.  That's why leftist are so angry.  They are not OK with it.  Their ultimate grievance, therefore, is with God.  That might explain why they never see an anti-God bandwagon that they're not willing to jump on.  See?  Connecting the dots.  Let's look at the prominent grievances of our day:

Environmentalism?  Did you ever wonder why so many rich people jump onto the we're-the-party-for-the-poor Democrat bandwagon?  Are there any multi-millionaire Hollywood types not riding this one?  They're as close to paradise as anyone's going to get, and yet, they look around and see all us nasty plebes messing it up.  Government to the rescue!  Connect the dots my friend.  Your job could be the next one that falls prey to the government's onerous EPA regulations.  And if you think that that rich millionaire gives a rip, I have a great paying job as a servant for you. The only catch is that you'll have to wait for a few years to get paid, though I can't say exactly when.

Abortion?  Why did God make it so that women have to bear the burden of the gestation phase of sex?  Why, in fact, does there even have to be a gestation phase to sex?  Why can't we just do it with whomever whenever we we want and not be "punished" with babies?  Government can fix that too... for free now.  So have fun you sexy thing you.

Social Justice?  This one will throw you a little if you're not careful.  It pretends to be for the downtrodden among us.  But if you look close, those who advocate the loudest for it don't practice what they preach.  So something else must be going on, right?  So, connect the dots.  Us plebes love a man of the people to administer our grievances.  So what better man of the people than one who promises us plebes that we can live as if we were in Eden again off the backs of the rich... someday.  But be patient please.  It's hard work fighting all those rich and powerful forces (who fill my campaign coffers with money ha ha) and it ain't gonna happen over night.

Meanwhile, those rich people we hate so much--you know, the ones who are living it up off our backs--keep getting richer, and we keep getting poorer.  What's up with that?  Oh, I know, we need to give that "man of the people" a little more power... then he'll fix it for us.  He'll fix it real good.

Homosexual marriage?  Marriage period, Pfft!  But what is a world without love... and sex?  Lots of sex?  Damn the children, we want sex with whomever and whenever... right?  Oh, but there's one more ever: how-ever.  But that "however" introduces a grievance doesn't it?  Shame.  Government to the rescue!  Government can legitimize whatever urges suit your fancy.  That's easy.  Just teach it in the schools and much to our surprise--but not theirs--wha-la!  Suddenly what was once shameful is not.  So, message to you Moms and Dads.  If you put your children into a mad-scientist's petri-dish, don't be surprised if they don't turn out quite like you had expected.  Best connect the dots on that one.

"Gun Control" Was Going On Long Before Gunpowder

Following is an excerpt from the Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire.  Of interest, and in bold, is a reference to the Roman government's outlawing of armes for its citizens.

To set it up, in this passage Gibbons is in the midst of explaining the relationship between the Hun and their slaves; some, evidently, of which are Romans.  In explaining this relationship he is citing the historian Priscus, who had by chance encountered an expatriate in the camp of the Hun.  A discussion ensues in which the once Roman, then slave, then freedman gives an overview of his experience as a Roman during the fall.

The historian Priscus, whose embassy is a source of curious instruction, was accosted in the camp of Attila by a stranger, who saluted him in the Greek language, but whose dress and figure displayed the appearance of a wealthy Scythian. In the siege of Viminiacum, he had lost, according to his own account, his fortune and liberty; he became the slave of Onegesius; but his faithful services, against the Romans and the Acatzires, had gradually raised him to the rank of the native Huns; to whom he was attached by the domestic pledges of a new wife and several children. The spoils of war had restored and improved his private property; he was admitted to the table of his former lord; and the apostate Greek blessed the hour of his captivity, since it had been the introduction to a happy and independent state; which he held by the honorable tenure of military service. This reflection naturally produced a dispute on the advantages and defects of the Roman government, which was severely arraigned by the apostate, and defended by Priscus in a prolix and feeble declamation. The freedman of Onegesius exposed, in true and lively colors, the vices of a declining empire, of which he had so long been the victim; the cruel absurdity of the Roman princes, unable to protect their subjects against the public enemy, unwilling to trust them with arms for their own defence; the intolerable weight of taxes, rendered still more oppressive by the intricate or arbitrary modes of collection; the obscurity of numerous and contradictory laws; the tedious and expensive forms of judicial proceedings; the partial administration of justice; and the universal corruption, which increased the influence of the rich, and aggravated the misfortunes of the poor.¹

One of the first things that presses itself upon the modern mind as it encounters this work of history is the civility to which the modern western mindset has grown accustomed.  There seem to have been almost constant raids conducted by the "barbarians" into the provinces of Rome, as well as from the provinces into the barbarian villages.  These raids involved sieges of walled cities, rape, murder, pillage rapine and captivity.  Modern Western civilization is simply not faced with the same problems in terms of the mere violence.  But there are many parallels still, once the savagery is set aside. As the expat describes his experience, the parallels hit much too close to home... in fact.

Notes                                              
1. Gibbon, Edward (2008-07-24). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Kindle Locations 19451-19463).  . Kindle Edition.

How Do The Arts Affect A Culture's Thinking About Church?

One of the things we do in our family is discuss how the producers of entertainment use it to manipulate our emotions and program our minds.  I picked up a season of The Big Valley off a bargain shelf recently and it provided us an excellent teachable moment.  

In an episode entitled "Fallen Hawk", one of the sons in the wealthy Barkly Family, Heath, (Lee Majors)  challenged an old acquaintance of his to ride a wild horse they were trying to tame in exchange for a financial favor he was requesting. The friend was injured when the horse through him off paralyzing him. Heath then felt that it was his duty to care for the injured man and his wife.

Heath's benevolence began to look scandalous as he grew closer to the wife. And although there was intentional ambiguity, in the end, that there was no reason for concern was firmly established.  But in the midst of this ambiguity, the scene below is inserted.  This scene advances the story line not one bit, but it does allow for the caricaturization of Christians as self-righteous, and judgmental busybodies. 

This scene is obviously meant to elicit disdain. Nevermind the fact that, to be obedient to scripture, the deacon would have approached Heath if there was a concern, not his mother.  Worse, the deacon admits basing the conclusions on "the talk" around town.  What an easy church person to hate and ridicule.  But the Church doesn't get to defend itself in these kinds of scenes; or does it?  

This episode was aired in March of 1966.  

Another way we are manipulated is by music.  Two years after the airing of this episode a song written by Tom T. Hall and performed by Jeannie Riley, entitled Harper Valley PTA, topped the charts. The song is very similar in sentiment to the Big Valley clip.  With an ad hominem argument the song effortlessly brushes aside the folly of a mother wearing immodest clothing, and "drinking, and a-runnin' 'round with men and going wild," in front of her teenaged daughter.  It simply accuses the accusers of being hypocrites. There.  Done.  One is left to presume that since everyone else is doing wrong too, evidently, doing wrong must be okay, and no one dare say anything for fear of being thought a hypocrite.  

This little musical ode, like the video clip, are just two examples of many.  They covertly program us to judge anyone as a hypocrite who dares to challenge bad behavior while at the same time giving us aid and comfort in our own sin. After all, it does get one thing right, and that is that none among any of us is without sin.  But the idea of judging ourselves; or of a righteous God judging us, vanishes. 

But non-believers are not the only ones being affected by the arts.  The American Church has also been impacted.  Could it be that American Christianity now so desires to say, "We're really not like that", that it is willing to tailor its outreach, its worship services and its sermons around proving it?  Could this mentality be at the root of "Emrgent-ism" and "Seeker friendly-ism", and avoiding certain doctrines as one might avoid mention of a pink elephant?

I am one of those who sees the Church as the only hope in responding to all that ails our society.  While I doubt that the majority of preachers of the 1960's understood what was happening during that time, they certainly didn't understand it enough to teach their congregations how to mentally navigate the powers of the media, or the cultural shifts that that media was bringing about.  But such ought no longer to be the case.  It takes so little time to understand a few logical fallacies, and only a little more to teach on how to apply them to the predominant thinking of our day.  Perhaps if love tempted us to protect the unwitting, there would be fewer of them who are misled by the arts. 

More interesting reading    

If life imitated art

The 14th Amendment And "Marriage Equality"

I just read a blog post entitled "why are Christians opposed to marriage equality?"  The post explains that "marriage equality" is simply a word game meant to make opposition more difficult. But the author's reasoning from the perspective of history, as well as the current popularity of cohabitation, in his response to a commenter who disagreed with his post is most interesting.  The exchange: 

Commenter:  Alternatively, the phrase ‘marriage equality’ is intended to convey the principle that its advocates actually see as the issue. It relates directly to the argument that failure to recognize gay marriage constitutes a substantive violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause. You will dismiss this of course, but it is hardly the deceitful re-branding of the issue which you pretend it to be.

Response:  Thank you for visiting my blog and for your comments. Both are greatly appreciated.

Firstly, you say “alternatively, the phrase “marriage equality” is intended to convey the principle that it’s advocates actually see as the issue.” Tell me then, Daniel, “what was intended to be conveyed as the principle by advocates when they used terminology (phraseology) as gay marriage / same-sex marriage / homosexual (gay) union?” The concept of “Equal Protection of Law” of the 14th Amendment has been with us since the period of Abraham Lincoln. Yet only now are these advocated of same sex marriages challenging traditional marriage with Constitutional Law and “Equal Protection.”

For many years there was what was referred to as the “Common Law.” In Ohio the Common law encompassed “equality of marriage.” It was referred to as “Common Law Marriage” and until (I believe) October 10th, 1991 the Common Law Marriage Laws remained in full-force. specifically the Common Law Marriage gave equal rights to cohabitating persons who would claim to be married. Though they’d not undergone any ceremony or received license certifying their union. I do not believe, at this writing, the Ohio Common Marriage Laws specifically stated that it be between a man and a woman. At the time of such writing legislators would have no need to be gender specific as to who qualified as a married couple. yet, I find no record of any gay couple taking advantage of such legislation, nor if questioned as to the legitimacy of their union, giving rise to the Common Law itself as it’s protector. The fact is clear, gays have always, in one manner or another, been allowed to become married.

Homosexuality pre-dates the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and yet no gay advocate utilized this possible free pass founded in Ohio. If indeed it existed to the extent of permissibility of homosexuals and homosexuality, whether knowingly or not, we cannot be certain as it was never challenged. and Perhaps other states as well held similar laws upon their books.. I believe that this new challenge to traditional marriage and the notion of gays being both a minority and disenfranchised is yet another attempt to demoralize America and break down Christian values held in our nation for nearly 400 years.

“Cohabitating heterosexuals” aren’t seeking special treatment, nor benefit, under the law yet they reside together as man and wife. If their living in a happy, sinful life-style is good enough for them why then shouldn't it be for gays? I would venture to say that at this time in our lives there are more people cohabitating than are married. Gays posit themselves as a minority and a disenfranchised people in need of “Equal Protection under the Law.” Your counter-part, the cohabitating heterosexual, does not see it that way. When counting, worldwide, the number of gays cohabitating and cohabitating heterosexuals, it is we, the traditional married couple, who are a minority and soon to become disenfranchised. And therefore in need of “Equal Protection of the law” in order to preserve our traditional way of life..”

The phrase “marriage equality” is intended to convey the principle that it’s advocates actually see as the issue.” I stand on my principle that God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman and too; homosexuality is an unnatural act and an abomination before God Almighty.

Abortion Roman Style Versus Canadian Style

The degradation of the meaning and sanctity of life has its consequences.  An infant who finds himself in the birth-canal can be murdered with impunity, and in some cases, perhaps, with celebration.  Just inches and moments later that same baby has acquired all the rights of a citizenship and his life is protected by law... or so we may suppose.  But even a child knows that inches and seconds do not human rights make.

So it should not surprise us that, given the modern mindset among modern elites, an elitist Canadian Judge would defend a mother who strangled her newborn child.  Judge Joanne From "The Blaze":

“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,"

 So what is the punishment for a mother killing her newborn?

“Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

This article brought to mind a passage from "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" wherein Gibbons paints a similar picture, but with different motives.  A practice that had become somewhat common during Rome's decline was the killing of newborn infants.  But pay attention to the motivations.  Gibbons explains as follows:

There are many of [Constantine's] laws, which, as far as they concern the rights and property of individuals, and the practice of the bar, are more properly referred to the private than to the public jurisprudence of the empire; and he published many edicts of so local and temporary a nature, that they would ill deserve the notice of a general history. Two laws, however, may be selected from the crowd; the one for its importance, the other for its singularity; the former for its remarkable benevolence, the latter for its excessive severity. 1. The horrid practice, so familiar to the ancients, of exposing or murdering their new-born infants, was become every day more frequent in the provinces, and especially in Italy. It was the effect of distress; and the distress was principally occasioned by the intolerant burden of taxes, and by the vexatious as well as cruel prosecutions of the officers of the revenue against their insolvent debtors. The less opulent [well off] or less industrious part of mankind, instead of rejoicing in an increase of family, deemed it an act of paternal tenderness to release their children from the impending miseries of a life which they themselves were unable to support. The humanity of Constantine; moved, perhaps, by some recent and extraordinary instances of despair, * engaged him to address an edict to all the cities of Italy, and afterwards of Africa, directing immediate and sufficient relief to be given to those parents who should produce before the magistrates the children whom their own poverty would not allow them to educate. (*)

So in Canada, murdering your offspring is understandable because having babies can be depressing and onerous while in ancient Rome it was considered acceptable because the parents didn't want their children to experience the same distresses of poverty and enslavement by government.  It would seem that ancients rationalized it out of compassion for the child, while in modernity it is rationalized out of the compassion for the self.

It would seem to me that the charge of murder against the Canadian girl is a little too severe for our modern sensibilities.  Perhaps practicing medicine without a licence would be more agreeable to our palate.  After all, it's not like she murdered her child with a gun.
 
Notes:
______________

* Gibbon, Edward (2008-07-24). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Kindle Locations 6406-6414).  . Kindle Edition.

The Language Of Racism

When we think about water pollution we generally judge a body of water as polluted or not.  If a polluted river meets an equally sized unpolluted river we would not then consider the water "half" polluted.  That's just not a term we would use to describe polluted water.  We simply think of it as polluted or not.  How polluted is another discussion entirely.

It would seem that race is seen the same way in our time.  The truth of this can be seen in the words we use.  This language betrays beliefs so deep that most are not even aware of them, yet, once we look more closely it becomes glaring.

We now have the first "black" president of America.  But wait.  Is he the first black president?  Actually no, he is the first half white president.  But wait.  Like water pollution, we don't speak in those terms do we?  When was the last time you heard of a river that was half clean?  No, in the mind of the racist, our president deviates from purity of white in the same way polluted water is in some degree less pure than clean water.  This is, of course, non-sense.

You see, our language reveals that we think in these terms when it comes to race. Any deviation from the pure standard of white is... well polluted... so our language would suggest.  Why else would a half-white president be referred to as black?  \

Worth noting is the fact that non-whites do not challenge whites on this obviously racist standard.  That's because they have been conditioned to accept this standard themselves. I had a non-white youth-group member in our church recently ask me, where do black people come from?  Do you see the culturally ingrained premise in that question?  An equally fair question would be, where do white people come from?  I wonder why he didn't ask that?

Marin Luther King envisioned a day when all the people of the world would be judged, not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character.  I now personally think that to be a lost cause.  The very people who are supposed to be the champions of such a cause, and those who have the most to benefit from that cause,  are so fixated on skin color they are blinded to their latent racism.  The white "protectors" seek their own redemption for the wrongs of others.  They also glory in self-righteousness by making themselves out to be the saviors of those whom they obviously see as inferiors.  And we now know that there is no class of people more loyally devoted to a party they see as their saviors as those who have been made unwitting victims by that same party.

As for me, I reject that Obama is the first "black" president.  He is simply the 44th person to hold that office. Not until we all see it that way will King's dream be realized.

The FOUR "R's"?

I heard a homeschooling advocate say in an interview recently that history was more important than math and language.  The interviewer's response was the same as mine, which was that it's not one of the three "R's".  He went on to make his case but it gave me reason to wonder.

In thinking about this I found that I could make the case that deficiencies in any of these four areas would result in various barriers to a more fulfilled life.  I decided that the "R" representing "reading" probably trumped history, because if a person can read he can teach himself the other three.  But there is another reason that we have the 3 "R's" and not the 4 R's... which I now think should include  "Retrospect".   (Hey, if Arithmetic can start with "r" then why not "retrospect" for history?)

Education's primary goal, it might be said, is to provide the opportunity for a more prosperous life.  If a person, at the very least, cannot read, write and do math, his prospects of being productive are weak.  He brings only his brawn to the marketplace.  But while the impact that ignorance of history makes on well-being is of more of a secondary nature, the consequences of such ignorance when it is more wide-spread can actually be more severe than ignorance of just reading, writing and math.

The reality of this is not as readily obvious for if only one person finds no reason or purpose to think outside his own time, society can easily absorb his ignorance into itself and the society, as well as the one, will probably be no worse off.

But when masses of people become ignorant of history the impact changes drastically.  A culture that is predominately ignorant of history lives in a time bubble devoid of the stabilizing influences it offers to the present.  History provides a culture with a reference point beyond its own time by which it can judge its own direction.  If a person knows history he can observe and discern the course of events according to that history.  He need not endure the trials and tribulations of his ancestors, or have a faulty view of the nature and proclivities of himself and his fellow man.  He is able to judge with clarity those who offer security in exchange for liberty.  But without a predominance of that knowledge, a culture becomes lost in time, and consequently, ripe for the oppressor's picking.

The prospects, therefore, of prosperity. that give us reason to apply ourselves to the 3 "R's" can all become nullified by our culture's whole-scale ignorance of history.  The Despot's restraints are first loosened by that ignorance, then broken.  And while the Despot lures the hapless citizen into deeper captivity with promises of a brighter future, the need and desire for that future grows ever more desperate as the cultural state of being declines.

This is of course why we homeschool our children.  The men who lust for power know that the opportunity to achieve that unfettered power lies in the classroom of the masses with the chief focal point being history.  They know that they must detach the child from the actual past and provide for him a past that is more conducive to the garnishment from them of power.  While our children may not escape the oppression of the tyrant, with a clear understanding of history, they won't have to fall prey to his wiles, and may possibly become a voice of reason in a dark and desperate culture.

The Prudish Homosexual

Sometimes the juxtaposition of words can shine a light on things. While it might easily be said, or perhaps even expected, that a disciple of  Christ would be a prude, somehow the idea of a prudish Homosexual has the feel of an oxymoron.  While we can and should admit, given the breadth of the dispositions of mankind, that there are instances of devoted and monogamous homosexual relationships, we also must realize that even in such cases the idea of a prudish homosexual falls short. ⁽¹⁾ There is a reason for this.  To discover that reason let's take a look at the definition of the word "Prude":

The online dictionary defines it this way:

"One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous. "

Considering this definition one word pops out at us right away: righteous.  This word is probably a good reason why the word prude is not considered to be a complement.   Le'ts take a closer look at that word, righteous as well to see why.  Merrian Webster defines it as "acting in accord with divine or moral law".

So we can see now why there is no such thing as a prudish homosexual.  The term prudish homosexual introduces cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance is like saying that it is forbidden to forbid, or, there is no truth... and that's the truth.  These statements are inconsistent with logic. In the same way, accusing a person who rejects the existence of absolute moral law of being excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous, is also inconsistent with logic.

Interestingly enough, the online dictionary goes on to say this:

"Being called a prude is rarely considered a compliment, but if we dig into the history of the word prude, we find that it has a noble past."

This "noble past" points to a time when it was generally accepted that there was such a thing as righteousness.  While the Christian perspective is that there are none righteous, no not one, this does not wipe away the existence of righteousness from which mankind falls short.  It remains that being a disciple of Christ, and thus being transformed into his righteous image, and being sanctified, ought to be the out-workings of that relationship.  The word prude, therefore, while causing us to be an object of contempt to the world, ought to give us reason for thankfulness in our hearts to God who has seen fit to transform us by the renewing our minds.
_________________

Note 1:  From the Christian perspective there is no such thing as a Homosexual Christian no more than there is such a thing as an adulterous Christian. Christians find their identity in Christ, not whatever garden variety of sin that happens to be "besetting" them.  "Homosexual Christian" does not describe, therefore, a Christian who struggles with same-sex attractions.  Such a Christian could easily be considered prudish, and given the shame all mankind inherently feels about his sinful behavior, Christians, above all, would not be desirous of waving as a banner, or claiming as an identity, their shame.

The Drawing To A Close Of The Information Revolution

Few realize it but a revolution of 60 years is showing signs of closure.  The re-election of Barack Obama was a signal that a victor in this revolution, brought about by the proliferation of the television set, is now beginning to emerge.  Since it is an un-named revolution, hidden perhaps within other simultaneous revolutions like the sexual revolution, I'll simply suffice to call it the Emotionian Revolution.

It's clear that information has always played a crucial role in struggles, whether armed or cultural.  But this revolution is different because it has been the very concept of information that appears to have been the objective behind the revolt.

Historically, as it involves information, strategies have centered on its control; bluffing opponents and deceiving enemies with false information, as well as propagandizing the populace to arouse passions against enemies, have all been effective uses of information.  The American founders understood this well and so enshrined the freedom of information into the Constitution as a defensive bulwark against those who would control information for their own gain. But the television set has changed all that.  The control of information has been rendered irrelevant because information itself has been rendered irrelevant.

A glimpse of the new battlefield upon which this revolution would take place occurred in 1960 during the first televised presidential debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon. This debate, it so happened, occurred as the  TV set was becoming increasingly prevalent in the American home. These debates are noteworthy, therefore, not because of the ideas that were debated, but rather because of the impact the medium would have on the outcome of the election.  Nixon, it was said, looked old, pale, unshaven and sweaty while his opponent appeared young, tan and energetic.  That none of these qualities have any bearing on presidential qualifications is very much a foreign thought today.  That we would cringe at the thought of voting in a primary for a profusely ugly candidate is a testament to the revolution and its success.

The famous Lincoln-Douglas debates, in contrast, remain noteworthy to this day for their ideological content.  They embody the battle of the mind and worldview of that day between contestants wielding weapons of ideas bolstered by information.  But this occurred during a time when people drew conclusions from ideas and experience.  But because of the advent of the television set, the Nixon/Kennedy debates would not be a battle of minds, but rather of images.  They would therefore forever change American and global politics.  Television would lull Western societies into a false sense of intellectual grandeur and glamor while at the same time actuality relieving them of reason and the toil of thinking.

The power of the moving image accompanied by emotion-arousing music, complete with caricatured, easy-to-hate strawmen, was not a new concept, to be sure. It was developed and used effectively during World War II.  But the migration of that arrangement from the scarcity of the big screen to daily ingestion by the family while congregating in the living room would prove to be an extremely powerful weapon that would bring about previously unforeseen or imagined changes.  Information, and then informed reasoning, would become a thing of the past for the collective society.  It would become a thing akin to a strategically ill-placed fort, bypassed and ignored by conquerors while its inhabitants fawned for logic-based intellectual battle.

The very concept of an informed citizen experienced a sort of reverse petrification process.  He would be transformed from an individual anchored by truth and reality into a caring, feeling and malleable citizen, one who hates and loves the correct ideas no matter how dissonant they may be. He wouldn't bother to consider the origins, reasonableness or consequences of his feelings, for to do so would require contemplation. Since these new feelings--not ideas--were installed by a medium that bypassed the cognitive filter of the mind, their installation went unnoticed.  As far as this modern new man was concerned, the mindset originated within himself.  Truth itself would be a casualty as these feelings, rather than an informed, principled and thoughtful position, would increasingly become the basis of a new kind of "truth".

The Nixon/Kennedy debates marked a beginning of the revolution by providing the discovery of a new means of conducting warfare through the image-driven campaign and the power of the TV.  It was quickly realized by some that with this new medium the political ground rules had drastically changed.  A projected image could now trump ideas. This fact ceded enormous amounts of power to television journalists and executives.  It was an opportunity that leftists immediately began to exploit.  But it wasn't by any means limited to just the news media.  All programming became a tool by which feelings-based values could be implanted.  The left was successful in populating every aspect of the medium with liberal ideology and ideologues.  Within 12 years, to even their own surprise I am convinced, they were able to take down a sitting president, all while successfully projecting an image of themselves as fair, objective, bystander journalists.

The media continued to consolidate this power and appeared to have been home free with their agenda when they met with their first counter-attack from the unlikeliest of corners, AM radio.  In August of 1988, Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show, the first of its kind.  A society in decline does not lack an awareness of its decline. They only lack an awareness of exactly how it's taking place.  The society is disoriented. 

Limbaugh's strength was his ability to say things that many people intrinsically knew but were unable to articulate. He was able to cut through the fog of liberalism. Within a few years, he would become a household name across America.  Not surprisingly he was immediately attacked from media strongholds.  Nevertheless, he was arguably instrumental in a major political upset for leftists in the Republican revolution of 1994.  With the mimicking of his success by like thinkers and communicators, AM radio would become a lone beacon of conservative dissent.  This conservative outpost would eventually pave the way for Republican majorities in both houses of Congress and control of the White House.  Unfortunately, conservatism itself would be successfully blocked.

The left's failed attempt to mount a counter offense in AM radio is in its own right telling.  Talk radio, as it turned out, is a poor medium for manipulating emotions. It is a medium for the mind.  In response to radio's inroads, TV media, which had begun 24-hour cable news programming in 1980, dared to up the ante as it began to test the waters of shedding the pretense of objectivity.  Any boundaries that once existed against biased propaganda, they discovered, had long since vanished. They found themselves free to transition their "journalism" to an emotion-based, biased bullhorn.  The "news" media, for all practical purposes, was no more.  It had become a de facto state-run propaganda machine.  The lines between the Democrat party and other power players like the entertainment media, government unions, universities and public education had solidified into a nation-wide machine that would by comparison make New York's Boss Tweed operation look like a playground bully.

As this revolution draws to a close, AM radio, like the reason and logic based ideas it trumpets, is being reduced to a mere nuisance.  The emotions of voting for a man of the people, so vacuous of real content that anyone's Utopian hopes can easily fit inside his created image, has proven impervious to pertinent information.  The logic-based facts of America's very real financial predicament, for example, simply bounce off the walls of closed minds. No fiscal hole is so deep, it is evidently felt, that the pockets of the rich can't be raided to fill it. Interestingly enough, and also telling, is the fact that so many rich, who are the supposed causes of all that ails us, are on board with the soak-the-rich scheme.  That would give a thinking society reason for pause, but not this one.

The 2012 election was a milestone for several reasons, the most relevant of which was that President Obama did not attempt to hide, and in fact was refreshingly forthcoming with his revolutionary Marxist inclinations. He even removed the facade of his stance on marriage, a milestone in its own right. The conservative media had become prevalent enough so that the availability of information about his views and intentions were plentiful.  It wasn't a lack of unbiased news outlets that brought about his success, for it was not as if his positions were cognitively considered, and then embraced in the minds of his supporters.  And it wasn't like any views that opposed leftist views were refuted either. Such would have meant the thoughtful consideration of valid information, and then the ramifications of that information.  No, for the first time, a  growing number of the people based their choice on how they "felt" about the image of Barack Obama that was projected.  The sad reality of this election was that only a minority of his voters actually shared his revolutionary ideas.  But that minority, coupled with those who had projected their Utopian ideas onto an image, were enough to breach the last remaining barrier between a free nation and tyranny, that bulwark being the voting booth.  He was able to gain a majority of voters without hiding his true identity, and he did it in spite of numerous and disastrous scandals and decisions, any one of which would have had a Republican falling to an embarrassing defeat.

To be sure, this revolution was not about Barack Obama, nor was it about conservative versus liberal ideology.  The name and face of the man in this past election are irrelevant, as they will be in the next.  What is relevant and revolutionary is the ability of someone unseen to create an image with any smart looking and sounding face by the manipulation of emotions and feelings through entertainment, social and news mediums, while at the same time quelling critical thought in the majority of the voting population.  What had been the minority has now become the majority.  There is now a new frontier before us.  The only question is, where will the image manipulators take us now?