Oh, America the beautifully politically correct.

Jon Dougherty sums it up in a nutshell in this article.

FLAME AWAY!

America, the mind-controlled

) 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Though the title of this column may suggest it, this is not a rant against the establishment media, though they certainly have a role here.

Rather, this column has more to do with absurdity, hypocrisy and doublespeak -- all techniques that control freaks love to use to control thought patterns among the masses. You see, like baseball's John Rocker, if you fall on the wrong side of the PC fence these days there are more than enough thought controllers around to see that you get "reeducated" and that "we get your mind right."

But don't ever imagine you can challenge their right to say and think what they wish. They're on the side of "righteousness," don't you know -- as defined, of course, by all the leftists.

At one point in our country's history, we used to use that line of reasoning to control slaves and other "enemies" of "conventional wisdom." At one point, Hitler used it to control his political opposition. Such mind control techniques are still employed throughout China and parts of Russia, but they have big nuclear weapons and a few bucks to spend so our leaders slink into the shadows and let them get by with it. But they don't mind employing this tactic against their own people in this country.

For example consider the ridiculous nature of anti-tobacco advertising. It's "against the law" to advertise cigarettes in most venues today, but the same people who have championed this ban don't mind seeing Budweiser lizards or Jack Daniels plastered all over the same venues.

All guns are bad -- taboo -- Americans are constantly told. Even a large banking conglomerate like Citibank refuses to do business with people who do business in weaponry. But it's OK to do business with other businesses that hype sex and violence -- as if neither of those two vices actually hurt people.

If you're a Christian and you talk publicly about your faith, you're either branded as some sort of extremist or you're disregarded as unrealistic. Witness the numerous sportscasters who were uncomfortable talking to St. Louis Rams' winning quarterback Kurt Warner who unabashedly credits his skill and performance to the Almighty.

If you're white -- and specifically a white guy -- then you're inherently racist. But if your skin is any other color in this country, you're somehow immune from being a racist, even though you may espouse anti-white rhetoric and blame "whites" for everything that has gone wrong in your life.

Anything "liberal" or associated with the Democratic National Committee is good. Anything "conservative" or associated with the Republican Party, the Libertarian Party or anything right of left is worse than bad -- it's dangerous.

Only kids who are educated in public schools learn the "right" things, while kids schooled at home or in parochial/private settings are considered freakish and disadvantaged.

And the list goes on.

These sorts of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations occur daily in our lives, in our pop culture, in the media, in entertainment and even in the way news is delivered. It happens constantly -- multiple times each day. If you're a part of life outside of a cave, then you're subjected to it nearly every minute of every waking hour.

Those on the left never admit their hypocrisy or their desire to get all of us to "think correctly." Instead opponents are labeled as hypocrites, and the leftists win by shouting down their opponents -- not by debating them on the merits of an issue or by using logic.

In our post-modern, hyphenated-American world, the spirit of liberty is in danger of being lost as millions of us are subverted by discreet and not-so-discreet barrages of leftist, nonsensical gibberish. To even mildly disagree with "conventional" mainstream opinion is to draw the ire of the mind controllers.

If you doubt that, try getting by with some of these things while in public:

Advocate that smoking is an individual's right

Tell others that you should have the right to carry a gun anywhere, anytime because you're no criminal

Questioning the wisdom of "Black History Month" in a country settled by white Europeans -- without extending the same to Hispanics and Asians, or even whites

Advocate the elimination of celebrating any race because we're all supposed to be Americans

Cutting public school funding in lieu of a total "pay-as-you-go" system

Suggest that there is too much sex and violence on TV and in the movies

Say that homosexuality is a sin

Tell people you spank your children

Predict that you will never cheat on your spouse because you love them too much to do that

Ask why so many U.S. troops are fighting in small foreign countries since we haven't formally declared war on anyone since 1941

Suggest that inner-city minorities are getting cheated by so many government welfare programs, and that said programs actually prevent them from doing better financially

Advocate abolishing the IRS

Pronounce that you are a believer in God and Jesus Christ and that man did not evolve from apes and slimy, one-celled creatures

My guess is you won't get by with too many of these in most places in America today without being challenged (loudly, probably) because too many of us have had our "minds right" for far too long.

Jon E. Dougherty is a staff writer for WorldNetDaily.

-- Patriot (taxslave.@webtv.net), February 23, 2000

Answers

No flame here, full, unabashed, unapologetic, agreement!

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 23, 2000.

God and Jesus? Whatever.

Third post: I need a good recipe for white clam sauce, using canned clams. Thanks.

-- (.@...), February 23, 2000.

If "Right-Think" bothers you, might I suggest you disconnect your TV. It's a whole different world when it's gone. Then you just have to pick a mix of magazines and news papers that present different points of veiw to get fairly balanced news.

But the main weapon is the TV. The "Stupid Ray" as I have called it in the past. Don't let it watch your kids for you, don't flip it on and flop in front when your tired, un-hook it from cable, tear off the antena and just hook it to a VCR or DVD player. You now have control over what culture is displayed in your home and is absorbed by your children. Here's a hint. Make it your own.

And yes, you'll miss sports. The way I see it, we are in such dire straits as a nation that we can't afford to watch sports or other bread and circus' anyway. Plus you'll have alot more time and inclination to wake up, look around and get involved.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), February 23, 2000.

Kill my TV? And miss "The Simpsons" ...or "When Animals Attack Magicians"?

Actually I spend more time on the net now than I do in front of the TV.

I love having access to all the politically incorrect thoughts out there. I love knowing that certain people would be furious to know what I'm reading.

Internet good, TV bad (except for some Fox programs).

-- just me (wasting@lotsof.time), February 23, 2000.

A palpable laundry list of complaints. However, to simply heap the blame for these things on "the left" is naive in the extreme. Both "sides" of the modern political landscape have contributed their share of evil in reducing the US to its current situation. This sort of divide and confuse rhetoric is getting old, ineffective, and increasingly transparent. Not surprisingly, the author also fails to recognize that organized, authoritarian, hierarchical religion is among the oldest of all of the "mind-control" apparatuses.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 23, 2000.

"Not surprisingly, the author also fails to recognize that organized, authoritarian, hierarchical religion is among the oldest of all of the "mind-control" apparatuses. "

So what? The decline of the west corresponds to the decline of the power of organized religions.

Society has become ever MORE corrupt as people have become LESS religious.

-- hell (in@a.handbasket), February 23, 2000.

"Not surprisingly, the author also fails to recognize that organized, authoritarian, hierarchical religion is among the oldest of all of the "mind-control" apparatuses. "

I don't mean to be rude, but after thirty years as a conservative Christian being told that my views are an example of mind-control, it gets a little old. In fact, this is exactly the point that Mr. Dougherty is making: in today's politically correct world, if you're against organized religion, that's OK, but if you espouse it, you're espousing mind-control.

My experience over the past thirty years is, if someone expresses a view that we conservative Christians don't agree with, we attempt to engage in intelligent discussion of the facts. If we express our view to someone who disagrees with it, we're closed-minded, mind- controlled, bigoted hate-mongers, whatever.

My experience is that in general - and I won't say this about you, Nathan, based on a few sentences posted in a forum, but in general - the most narrow-minded people I've encountered are the ones who accuse those who disagree with them of narrow-mindedness, and those least able to think for themselves and intelligent intereact with opposing viewpoints are those who equate opposing viewpoints with "mind-control."

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 23, 2000.

"Internet good, TV bad (except for some Fox programs)."

Fox? Like "Who wants to marry a multi-millionaire"?

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 23, 2000.

Markus,

The mind-controlled rarely know they're mind-controlled, that's why it's called mind-control. I'm merely stating a provable historical fact: that religion has been and continues to be used as a tool of mass manipulation. Of course, it is always the "other guy's" relgion that is up to no good.

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 23, 2000.

I'm also tired of hearing I cant dance.

-- JB (noway@jose.com), February 23, 2000.

Divided and conquor indeed. I have been guilty of using the "liberal" vs "conservative" labels myself.

So how about we all agree to the following:

We can say what we want. We recognise that we are responsible for the consequences of what we say. (Like shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, or bearing false witness against our neighbor.)

We can raise our children the way we want.

We can do what we want, so long as what we do does no harm to anyone else. (Perhaps a good basis for a system of law.)

We can choose who we will associate with.

We can defend ourselves against attack using anything that isn't guided, a weapon of mass destruction or crew served.

We will all respect each others privacy.

We will all defend each others rights to these things, against all comers, if anyone tries to take them from those others.

We will not take innocent human life. (On purpose at least.)

We will respect each others property.

We will be responsible for our actions.

We will consider everyone equal in the eyes of the law.

Are Liberals against these things? Are conservatives? Are we being divided so that we can be conquored?

Think about it.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wsihes.2all), February 23, 2000.

Decline of the West? What decline?

Everyone I know is having a ball. The stockmarket has tripled in in five years. My new TV costs half of what I paid four years ago.

There are more good restaurants to go to than ever. Luxury movie theaters are sprouting all over. You can buy fine strawberries in the middle of Winter.

Our church just paid off its mortgage ten - yes, ten - years ahead of schedule. And we placed second last fall in Junior Girls Soccer.

What's not to like?

-- (watch@the.Grammies), February 23, 2000.

Then there's Prozac. Good news and bad news here!

Recent evidence shows that people experience all kinds of terrible side effects from Prozac.

The good news is, it doesn't bother them. :-)

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), February 23, 2000.

I'm all for liberals and conservatives agreeing to disagree and getting along, if the playing field is level. But if all opinions, liberal and conservative, are equally valid, I'd like a few things explained to me.

1. Why did the mainstream press make a big deal out of G.W. Bush visiting Bob Jones university, because that supposedly constitutes condoning bigotry, when it does not level similar criticism at Gore and Bradley for kissing up to Al Sharpton? (No one has ever been incited to kill members of other ethnic groups as a result of BJU officials propounding their policy on interracial dating.)

2. Why did the media go into a frenzy about totally unsubstantiated allegations about Bush's supposed cocaine use, when not even the slightest shred of evidence existed, but ignore allegations against Al Gore where substantiation does exist?

3. Why is it wrong for churches to oppose Bill Clinton (the IRS has revoked tax exemption in several cases), but OK for a minister to endorse Al Gore from the pulpit of his church?

4. Why does John Rocker get a more severe punishment for insulting minority groups than was handed out for spitting on an umpire, but Ted Turner (owner of the same team that Rocker plays for) gets not even a verbal slap on the wrist for insulting Catholics?

5. Why is Ken Starr vilified for doing his job as a prosecutor, because he's supposedly dragging something out that the nation needs to leave behind and move on, but there's not a word of criticism for those prosecuting Linda Tripp?

I could go on and on and on and on. But unless someone can explain to me why these do not indicate a blatant double standard, I am forced to conclude that there are no objective standards of right and wrong left in our society, just "us" and "them", and if you hold politically incorrect views, or are part of some group that's out of favor with the politically correct, then you're a "them" and you don't have the same rights as the "us."

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 23, 2000.

Watch six and keep your... -- eyes_open

Would that we could live in a country, nay a world, where these points were the foundation of our government and daily lives.

-- justme (justme@myhouse.com), February 23, 2000.

"We will not take innocent human life. (On purpose at least.)"

Nice try. I completely agree. But I say that abortion is murder. A depraved act on the part of everyone involved. Period. End of discussion. But try to tell that to a liberal who will parse the definition of the word "is". There is no compromising with God's laws and of right and wrong (that is why I am a criminal without hope were it not for my Redeemer, Jesus Christ). By the way, just about everything I do affects everyone else. We do not live in a vacume.

But if you want I can make a case to prove that stop signs are bad. I can concoct an exception to the rule scenario to show that stop signs not only impede my freedom of choice but are a dangerous relic of the patriarchal mind control Christian right. But it is dangerous to make law based on exceptions to the rule. But that is what we are doing in America to tear down the foundations. That is what Clinton did to justify is veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. ...sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), February 24, 2000.

Last sentence should have read: "That is what Clinton did to justify HIS veto of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban." ...sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), February 24, 2000.

Markus,

It's no so much that there's a double standard (though this would certainly appear to be the case if one just recently started paying attention to what's going on in this country) as that those who currently hold office get away with a lot of crap and have the support of the "system" to push their crap-loaded agendas, even in violation of current law. This is only "natural", as the "system" put them in office in the first place. When the other so-called party gets its turn, the similar sort of double-standard, unaccountable junk happens from the other side. The only apparent consistency in the activities of both "parties" is a continuing debasement of the rights, principles, and institutions that this nation once held dear.

The sole purpose result of our so-called two-party system is to let people think they have a "choice" in their leadership. But this is a patently false choice, Hegelian in the worst possible way. We're routinely given two more or less equally bad picks having virtually indistinguishable agendas. The truly constructive alternatives are shut out of the "system".

Yes, at the margins, there may be some inconsequential differences between candidates and administrations, and occasionally someone does get in that doesn't quite seem to fit the mold. But in that case, an assassination or attempted assassination may be used to effect the proper "adjustments".

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 24, 2000.

I think you guys get the drift. Yes, we would have discussions, even heated arguments over whether or not an unborn child's life should be protected. Yes, the press is liberal (for now). But if we, the common men and women, were willing to stand up for each others rights, and were united when it came to that, there would be no Wacos, no Ruby Ridges, no Rodney Kings, no Wounded Knees.

I think in order for that to happen we need to veiw each other as equal citizens. Right now, we are fragmenting as a nation. It's becoming "us against them". Simply devide and conquor.

Any ideas on how we move towards being a nation again?

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), February 24, 2000.

eyes-open

If only there was a simple answer to your question. My feelings have always been that greed is the root of all our problems.

There is a movie that comes to mind called The Mad Woman from ...... (can't remember the name) Anyway it starred Katherine Hepburn. In the end she lures all the greedy bankers and oil barons into a dungeon and locks the door.

Ah, if real life could only be that easy to find a happy ending.

-- Luvy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 24, 2000.

eyes-open

If only there was a simple answer to your question. My feelings have always been that greed is the root of all our problems.

There is a movie that comes to mind called The Mad Woman from ...... (can't remember the name) Anyway it starred Katherine Hepburn. In the end she lures all the greedy bankers and oil barons into a dungeon and locks the door.

Ah, if real life could only be that easy to find a happy ending.

-- Lucy (lifeisgoodhere@webtv.net), February 24, 2000.

The most looked down upon and misunderstood religion on the planet

WICCA

holds as their solemn creed

"Do what ye will, An it harm ye none"

Yet many would still like to see us burned at the stake

Goddess help us all,

Pagan One

-- Pagan One (not@today.no), February 24, 2000.

Nathan, I understand your point, and in fact I have to agree with you about the myth of a two-party system. But I still see a double- standard, e.g. I don't see Clinton's lies and cover-up generating the same outrage that Nixon's did when he supposedly controlled the "system".

This link:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/1999/dec/ubcnazi.gif

actually caught on film pro-abortion activists trashing a pro-life display on a college campus. (Link here to story.) When I hear the "Christian right" accused of wanting to stifle free speech, while things like this pass without comment, it seems like a double-standard to me.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.

Markus,

The "system" eventually found Nixon to be a liability and that's why he was summarily dumped. The "system" apparently sees Clinton as an asset and that's why he was kept. The rigging of the impeachment vote was a sight to behold. So many Congressman, so little backbone.

Interestingly, both the dumping of Nixon and the non-dumping of Clinton reinforce the notion that national governments are corrupt and ineffective. Our eventual "choice" will be to either continue under national corruption and increasingly ineffective institutions, or to accept a global authority, probably with the promise of a carrot or the threat of a stick. As usual, this will be a manufactured, false choice, but it will be presented nonetheless.

You may be confusing right and wrong with left and right. Each "side" of the political spectrum has its allocated tasks. Each does its share of wrong and actively limits what is inherently right. The tasks have begun to overlap more and more as the final act draws closer, yet each "side" still retains some specialties. The "Left" advocates pro-abortion (though parts of the "Right" are softening on this) and the "Right" advocates corporate transnationalism (though the "Left" has considerably softened on this). Essentially, the "Left" is destroying our social institutions while the "Right" is destroying our economic institutions. They're both destroyers, they just take turns, one picking up where the other left off. The rational, moral, industrious voter basically has no one to vote for and hasn't for at least 35 years now. We either become what our "parties" require us to become, or we become disenfranchised.

The concept and instinctive acceptance of on-demand, largely unrestricted abortion is an inherent part of the globalist agenda. The globalists now perceive, more or less correctly, that the current rate of population growth is non-sustainable, especially at Western standards and at current levels of energy consumption. Depopulation is coming, one way or another. Mandatory sterilization, on-demand abortion, forced abortion, genocide, and mass depopulation are among the many tools the gloablists will use to solve this "problem".

Apparently, the gloablists feel no particular responsibility that their prior manipulative policies of rapid, unsustainable growth and manufactured, wasteful consumption have led to a population explosion and parallel rapid depletion of non-renewable resources. They goofed, I guess...

-- Nathan (nospamwh@tsoever.moc), February 24, 2000.

From what I've read about population growth, the evidence currently shows that as a nation becomes industrialized population growth slows to basically zero (even though resources are plentiful).

You have to have more than two kids per couple to break even--some of those kids die before having kids, and some are infertile. Good thing we get immigrants, and that they have lots of kids, isn't it!

Meantime, a lot of Africa is being depopulated by AIDS.

-- S. Kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), February 24, 2000.

Nathan, I think we agree about 90 percent, and I'm not going to quibble about the other 10 anymore tonight.

-- Markus Archus (m@rkus.archus), February 24, 2000.