The War On Thought
Back to the Future....
George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" vividly illuminated how history can be easily revised by continuous repetition of unchallenged false statements and twisted language. Unfortunately, his work is as relevant and needed today as it was in the 1940's, as illegal aliens are now called "undocumented workers" (soon to be shortened to just 'voters'), and the head of Homeland Security now calls terrorism, "man-caused disasters".
Another example of twisted language is the misappropriation of the term "Liberal"; no longer applying to those individuals who demand greater personal freedom and liberty for the citizenry, but misapplied to those whose main objective appears to be more and greater control of the citizenry by the state.
Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer and syndicated broadcaster, wants to end the misuse of the label "Liberal", and instead, has named these people "Statists". It appears to be an appropriate distinction.
"Statists" seek to increase the power of the State through a variety of methods: the imposition of higher taxes on specific segments of society and industries that are in their disfavor; increased restrictions on personal property ownership from autos to guns; elimination of choice over a wide range, from educational sources to even food choices; elimination of faith-based and conscience driven action, including health professionals' ability to not perform procedures based on their beliefs; censorship of radio shows, and substitution of politically correct euphemisms as a means of repositioning socially negative acts as socially beneficial.
Another chilling aspect of the "Statist" agenda is the increased number of citizens being absolved from taxation, yet receiving increased wealth transfer payments from this same "beneficent" government. Essentially making them increasingly dependent on the whim of the state, and like the hooked addict, desirous of even more State entitilements.
Looking back on Orwell's "1984", it's even more important today that we have more characters like Orwell's "Winston Smith" questioning our government and its policies. In this quest, however, style has increasingly become higher valued than intellectual substance in evaluating critical issues. As a society, we've become complacent in our responsibility to weigh the content, and instead prefer the packaging. Our 4th Estate - the Press, like Orwell's "Inner Party", is now generally monolithic in thought, has become increasingly linked with the Democrat Party, and is intellectually unchallenging. It's members are more comfortable with applauding consensus and flowing along with their peers, than in thoughtful evaluation and investigative journalism.
Conservative broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others who challenge these "Statists", are demeaned and devalued because they eschew subtlety; lack nuance; focus on personal responsibility; applaud personal achievement and worst of all, encourage the "greedy" development of personal and family wealth. They also point out the hypocrisy of the "Statist's" actions, such as Obama's recent proposal to increase taxes on charitable donations under the guise of "fairness", while his real objectives are to confiscate more wealth to further his agenda, and eliminate private charity as the main source of funding for many social endeavors.
Andrew Brietbart, like Daniel in the den of lions, speaks out against the "Statists" from Hollywood, via his blog "Big Hollywood". Here's a discussion between Andrew and Sean Hannity . If the embedded video doesn't display, you can view the video here.
George Orwell's "Animal Farm" and "1984" vividly illuminated how history can be easily revised by continuous repetition of unchallenged false statements and twisted language. Unfortunately, his work is as relevant and needed today as it was in the 1940's, as illegal aliens are now called "undocumented workers" (soon to be shortened to just 'voters'), and the head of Homeland Security now calls terrorism, "man-caused disasters".
Mark Levin, a constitutional lawyer and syndicated broadcaster, wants to end the misuse of the label "Liberal", and instead, has named these people "Statists". It appears to be an appropriate distinction.
"Statists" seek to increase the power of the State through a variety of methods: the imposition of higher taxes on specific segments of society and industries that are in their disfavor; increased restrictions on personal property ownership from autos to guns; elimination of choice over a wide range, from educational sources to even food choices; elimination of faith-based and conscience driven action, including health professionals' ability to not perform procedures based on their beliefs; censorship of radio shows, and substitution of politically correct euphemisms as a means of repositioning socially negative acts as socially beneficial.
Another chilling aspect of the "Statist" agenda is the increased number of citizens being absolved from taxation, yet receiving increased wealth transfer payments from this same "beneficent" government. Essentially making them increasingly dependent on the whim of the state, and like the hooked addict, desirous of even more State entitilements.
Looking back on Orwell's "1984", it's even more important today that we have more characters like Orwell's "Winston Smith" questioning our government and its policies. In this quest, however, style has increasingly become higher valued than intellectual substance in evaluating critical issues. As a society, we've become complacent in our responsibility to weigh the content, and instead prefer the packaging. Our 4th Estate - the Press, like Orwell's "Inner Party", is now generally monolithic in thought, has become increasingly linked with the Democrat Party, and is intellectually unchallenging. It's members are more comfortable with applauding consensus and flowing along with their peers, than in thoughtful evaluation and investigative journalism.
Conservative broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others who challenge these "Statists", are demeaned and devalued because they eschew subtlety; lack nuance; focus on personal responsibility; applaud personal achievement and worst of all, encourage the "greedy" development of personal and family wealth. They also point out the hypocrisy of the "Statist's" actions, such as Obama's recent proposal to increase taxes on charitable donations under the guise of "fairness", while his real objectives are to confiscate more wealth to further his agenda, and eliminate private charity as the main source of funding for many social endeavors.
Andrew Brietbart, like Daniel in the den of lions, speaks out against the "Statists" from Hollywood, via his blog "Big Hollywood". Here's a discussion between Andrew and Sean Hannity . If the embedded video doesn't display, you can view the video here.
Posts
