Cultural Good and Evil

Ugliness can be as thought provoking as beauty.  Such was the case when I stumbled upon a vast area smothered in vines.  It seemed a perfect metaphor for the suffocating impact of progressive ideology on our culture.  I wondered if the strangled shrubs were aware of the danger or remained oblivious.  As I stood transfixed and contemplated their potential death, the concepts of good and evil came to mind. 

Progressive western governments increasingly use lies and deceit to enact totalitarian measures to solidify their power.  These laws seek to choke free speech, eliminate dissent and subjugate our limitless human spirit.  Absolute clarity is required to thwart these efforts, a difficult task considering we are bombarded daily with subtle and outrageous lies.  We can clear the fog with the application of morality. This requires a practical definition of good and evil. 

M. Scott Peck’s book “People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil” offers such a definition: “Evil, then, for the moment, is that force, residing inside or outside of human beings, that seeks to kill life or liveliness.  And goodness is its opposite.  Goodness is that which promotes life and liveliness.”  Dr. Peck offers this simple yet profound summation: “evil is also that which kills spirit.” 

Dr. Peck outlines how lies are the hallmark of an evil individual.  “The evil attack others in order to avoid facing their own failures.” “While they seem to lack any motivation to be good, they intensely desire to appear good.  Their goodness is all on a level of pretense.  It is, in effect, a lie.  This is why they are the people of the lie.” 

“People of the Lie” focuses on individual and group human evil.  Please note this article focuses on whether policies are good or evil as measured by their impact on the human spirit.  It is not intended to comment on the spiritual state of those who propagate those policies. 

Some might suggest an entrance into the metaphysical is a bit dramatic.  I maintain that it is essential because the politicians have already introduced good and evil into the 2024 election.  Without our serious consideration we are subject to unconscious emotional manipulation.  Jill Biden recently said she “believes Americans are going to choose good over evil” and vote for President Biden.  President Biden has also evoked similar sentiments: "We are in a battle for the soul of America. A battle that by the grace of God, the goodness and gracious, greatness of this nation we will win."   In more precise language, we are in a battle between good and evil. 

With their statements the Biden’s have essentially labeled President Trump and conservatism evil.  What about their policies?  Let’s examine several interwoven progressive policies supported by the Biden administration. 

Self-Reliance – Good or Evil? 

“No one can be great, or good, or happy except through the inward efforts of themselves.” – Frederick W. Robertson

The above quote epitomizes self-reliance.  It is formally defined as “reliance on one's own efforts and abilities”.  Self-reliance builds self-confidence, leads to personal growth, and success.  A self-reliant individual learns to make decisions and assumes responsibility for their success or failure.  Self-reliance is independence. The absence of it is dependence which in turn reduces individual power. 

Over the years it appears this core American principle has lost favor.  We have exchanged self-reliance for dependence on Big Government, Big Pharma, and Big Food. 

It seems however that Big Government has had the greatest impact on the decline of self-reliance.  In the 1960s President Johnson launched a massive expansion of social welfare programs entitled the “Great Society”.  Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and many others have studied the negative impact of these programs on black communities, family structure and individual responsibility.  For example, many black men abandoned their responsibilities because they could.  Thomas Sowell provides the data in “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”:

“Accordingly while two-thirds of black children were living with both parents in 1960, only one-third were by 1994.  While only 22% of black children were born to unmarried women in 1960, 74% were in 1994.”  There was a “widespread abandonment and casual abandonment of their children and the women who bore them by black fathers in the ghettos of the late 20^th century…”

The data on the disintegration of the family and its impact on crime, violence and upward mobility has been actively ignored.  Instead, public policy to foster government dependency has continued unabated.  President Obama glorified the culture of dependence in his 2012 campaign ad “The Life of Julia”.  To our credit there was such a backlash that Obama removed the video from his campaign site.

This excerpt from a David Harsanyi article titled “Who the hell is Julia and why the hell am I paying for her?” summed up the reaction of many: “What we are left with is a celebration of a how a woman can live her entire life by leaning on government intervention, dependency and other people's money rather than her own initiative or hard work. It is, I'd say, implicitly un-American, in the sense that it celebrates a mindset we have - outwardly, at least - shunned.”

Considering the intensely negative reaction to “Life of Julia”, it is curious Biden released a similar cartoon on the life of Linda to support cradle to grave welfare policies: “But the Life of Linda is a telling tragedy, one where a woman is “liberated” from the love and support of family and community and instead comes to rely upon the leviathan of the state.”  The saddest thing about this cartoon is there was barely any reaction from the public.  How we have change in 9 years. 

In his excellent article entitled “The Destructive Legacy of the Great Society”, Jason Riley explains how the “Democrats are now aiming to create new entitlements and expand the existing ones, not only for the poor but also for the professional class.”  These policies seek to increase the number of citizens politically shackled to their benefactors. 

The latest disturbing example of the attack on self-reliance and personal responsibility is the “cancellation” of student debt.  It is not canceled. The student’s responsibility has been shifted to the taxpayer.  It is an incredibly unfair vote buying scheme that teaches young people they don’t have to make good decisions. It is a grievous insult to taxpayers who sacrificed to pay for their or their children’s education or could not afford to go to college themselves.  The lack of outrage from the citizenry speaks volumes. 

Because self-reliance uplifts the human spirit and leads to personal growth, it is good. Conversely, that which reduces self-reliance smothering our spirit and personal growth falls into the evil column. 

The Effort to Splinter Society and Cast Underperforming Groups as Victims – Good or Evil? 

The decline in our core self-reliance created fertile ground for victim/oppressor ideology to take root. 

These narratives attempt to splinter society into groups and then pit them against each other.  One group is labeled “marginalized” and a corresponding group is labeled the “oppressor”.  Members of the marginalized group are taught they are victims and their failures are due to the oppressors.  Failure is always somebody else’s fault.  Concepts like meritocracy, personal responsibility, group culture, lousy schools, home life and the content of one’s character are ignored.  What could possibly go wrong? 

Divisive victim/oppressor ideology has been widely deployed on the basis of skin color, gender, socioeconomic status and religion. Narratives pushing gender ideology, for example, have been especially divisive because the government has declared the ideology factual when it is only a collection of ideas. Worse the ideology has been tangled up with those who suffer from gender dysphoria.  Consequently individuals who speak against the ideology and its impact on young people are then accused of “hate speech” and prejudice against people who have gender dysphoria. 

The skin color chapter of victim/oppressor ideology is often called Critical Race Theory (CRT).  It is also called neoracism because the ideology condones racism to fight racism.  Coleman Hughes is a young black author who recently published the “The End of Race Politics”.  Sadly he has been viciously labeled as a sell out and Uncle Tom for his efforts.  Below is his summary of neoracist ideology: 

“White people have always had power in society - power that they used to create systems like slavery and Jim Crow that oppress people of color.  Even though those systems were destroyed, American society has made little or no progress redressing the wrongs that white people have inflicted on people of color in the past and continue to inflict on people of color in the present… All around us, policies and institutions give rise to racial disparities – differences in outcomes between white people and people of color…Wherever racial disparities exist, racism – past and present – is the cause….”. 

In other words, black people are taught they are perpetual victims.  The source of their failures can never be found in the mirror.

Mr. Hughes’s book addresses the falsehood of these assertions in detail.  In summary, neoracist theory takes the ugly truth of slavery, Jim Crow and racism and wraps it in lies and half-truths to advance the concepts of systemic racism, white supremacy, and black victimhood. For example, it is obvious we have made significant progress neutralizing racism since the passage of the Civil Rights Act.  Plus, it was white people who initiated the end of slavery, a global practice that had existed for millennia. It was black and brown people who resisted its elimination.  Please read the chapter entitled “The Real History of Slavery” in Thomas Sowell’s “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”. 

The evil reality of black victimhood during slavery and the ugly racism that followed has erroneously been projected to the present. We should ask why. 

Even though only a modest amount of research is required to debunk the tenets of neoracism and its divisive impact on society, it is still advanced at the highest levels of our government.  Consider President Biden’s commencement speech at Morehouse College: 

“You started college just as George Floyd was murdered and there was a reckoning on race. It’s natural to wonder if democracy you hear about actually works for you. 

“What is democracy if black men are being killed in the street? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR_jSiuo6Lg

“What is democracy if a trail of broken promises still leave black—black communities behind? 

“What is democracy if you have to be 10 times better than anyone else to get a fair shot? 

Neoracism in general and these remarks in particular are heartbreaking.  To lie to any young person about their potential for success, especially by the leader of the free world, could derail their efforts and future achievements.  It is demeaning and abusive. We must ask if limiting success and therefore personal power is an intended or unintended consequence of all forms of victim/oppressor ideology. 

Racists will always exist.  They can be neutralized, however. The solution is quite simple.  Shift the cultural paradigm to equal opportunity, meritocracy, and a collective focus on excellence not skin color, gender or any other single characteristic of an underperforming group.  This will result in a more united culture striving for success, not one mired in resentment and “hate speech”.

Unfortunately, the implementation of such a shift will be exceedingly difficult.  True progress will require individuals and underperforming groups examine their own limiting behaviors. It is also essential that we admit our significant policy failures that shackle the poor, discourage self-reliance and personal responsibility.  Sadly this is something that politicians and hustlers are loathe to do.  They just pile on more bad policy and taxpayer dollars to cover up their mistakes. 

The Efforts to Quell Free Speech: Good or Evil?

Free speech is under attack in many western countries often under the guise of quelling disinformation and “hate speech”.  It is notable that those who want to regulate free speech to stop “hate speech” are the same progressive governments who promote victim/oppressor narratives that encourage “hate speech”. 

The most egregious attack on free speech can be found in Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act.  State media suggests the bill is designed to stop the online exploitation of children.  Justin Trudeau stated in a speech introducing this bill “…people will see that it is very specifically focused on protecting kids and not on censoring the internet as misinformation and as the right wing tends to try and characterize it as…”.  Even though parts of the bill do attempt to protect children, it goes far beyond that.  Trudeau seeks to stop lying by lying.     

Matt Taibbi, Racket News, summarizes the bill in his article “Blame Canada? Justin Trudeau Creates Blueprint for Dystopia in Horrific Speech Bill”.  Below are highlights of the proposed bill from his article:

·       enlist Canada’s citizens in an ambitious social monitoring system, with rewards of up to $20,000 for anonymous “informants” of hateful behavior, with the guilty paying penalties up to $50,000, creating a self-funded national spying system;

·       introduce extraordinary criminal penalties, including life in prison not just for existing crimes like “advocating genocide,” but for any “offence motivated by hatred,” in theory any non-criminal offense, as tiny as littering, committed with hateful intent;

·       punish Minority Report pre-crime, where if an informant convinces a judge you “will commit” a hate offense, you can be jailed up to a year, put under house arrest, have firearms seized, or be forced into drug/alcohol testing, all for things you haven’t done;

·       penalize past statements. The law gets around prohibitions against “retroactive” punishment by calling the offense “continuous communication” of hate, i.e. the crime is your failure to take down bad speech;

·       force corporate Internet platforms to remove “harmful content” virtually on demand (within 24 hours in some cases), the hammer being fines of “up to 6% of… gross global revenue.”

If this bill passes, Canada will become the “thought police” and thereby limit individual growth and freedom.  Fear, not a dedication to excellence, will dominate the culture as people become compliant surfs and snitches who must constantly self-censor.  It will eliminate dissent and debate.  It will crush people’s spirit.  It is evil. 

It is also the direction many western countries are headed.  As a constitutional republic it would be difficult to enact and enforce Canada’s proposed bill in the United States.  However, as we have seen with exposes such as the Twitter Files and the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop, there are rampant efforts to censor and curtail free speech often under the pretense of stopping “hate speech”, disinformation and “saving democracy”.  This is illogical.  Free speech is a nonnegotiable component of a successful democracy.  Without it, we will no longer have a democracy.  The “saving democracy” façade, therefore, is a lie to gain our support for legislation that will limit our discourse, freedom and spirit.  It goes into the evil column. 

Lies and disinformation can be found everywhere – social media, traditional media and exiting the mouths of politicians.  Legislation will never stop it.  It will only give those in power free rein to lie with impunity.  Our only hope is to neutralize lies with an honest media, critical thought, personal responsibility, dedication to reality, vigilance, continuous exposure to differing viewpoints and rational debate.  Let’s work on these things. 

Summary

Above we examined just three intertwined progressive policies and strategies that have the full support of the Biden administration.  Individually and together, they restrict the human spirit, free and open expression, personal and cultural growth. It seems that President Biden and his wife have engaged in a classic case of projection in their remarks on good and evil. It will be interesting to observe if they ever offer detailed examples to back up their words. 

There are many other policies that would benefit from the application of the good and evil filter such as lying to children and parents that puberty blockers are fully reversible, supporting late term abortions for convenience or weaponizing the justice department to attack a political opponent.

Ultimately change is dependent on us, the voters, and our clear view of the evil impact of these policies on our cultural and human spirit.  Too many citizens have taken the victim bait, tolerated failure, the collapse of our cultural mores and unbelievably continue to elect politicians and systems that foster our decline.  Let’s pull the suffocating vines out by the roots. 

DETAILS

As always, I include a details section to support the opinions above and provide resources for the reader to continue their own research:

• Scott Peck’s books People of the Lie and The Road Less Traveled are as relevant today as they were when published years ago.

• Let’s keep the definition of tolerationism handy as we observe global events: “Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.”

• The quote from Frederick W Roberston on self-reliance was sourced from this article.

• WSJ’s James Taranto response to Life of Julia. 

• David Harsanyi reaction to Life of Julia titled “Who the hell is Julia and why am I paying for her whole life?”

• “The polls say President Biden has lost support among black Americans, and the White House appears to have settled on a strategy to win them back: spread more racial division.”  The quotes from Biden’s commencement speech to Morehouse College were from this editorial from the WSJ.   

• Jason Riley compares Obama’s and Biden’s speeches to Morehouse College in this WSJ editorial.  “Mr. Biden’s speech revealed someone who doesn’t believe that black people can or should be held to the same standards as other groups.”

• Manhattan Institute columnist Douglas Murray received the Alexander Hamilton Award for his “unwavering defense of Western values”.  Consider watching or reading his inspiring acceptance speech. 

• Please note that “hate speech” is in quotes because this phrase is being used as a cudgel to limit free speech. Too often, opinions that disagree with the various victim/oppressor ideologies are deemed “hate speech”. It has therefore become a meaningless phrase in my opinion.

• Thomas Sowell has done much to shine a light on myths and lies that promote victimhood. Note that “underperforming groups” is his language. In addition to his excellent books consider the youtube series, Black Wisdom Matters.  Perhaps watch this video of young black men’s reaction to Thomas Sowell.  It is unfortunate his research and conclusions are not taught in schools alongside the likes of Ibram X Kendi. 

• Walter Williams also offer a path forward.  Perhaps begin research into his work with this article “Blacks of Yesteryear and Today”.

• Microwave Man says it best.

• “The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America” by Coleman Hughes is excellent. Please ignore the unfair attacks on Mr. Hughes and give this book a chance.

• An opposing viewpoint can be found in the Culture Ally site’s definition of marginalized groups.  It appears everyone is marginalized except for middle and upper class heterosexual white men.  “Marginalized groups include women, people with disabilities, people of color, LGBTQ+ folks, Indigenous peoples, people of a lower socio-economic status and so on.  These groups have been historically disempowered and oppressed by influential and discriminatory groups.”

• Public, Racket News and the Free Press are independent journalists who have done significant research and reporting on the subject of free speech.  They publish on Substack.  Should we wish to truly save democracy, we must educate ourselves.  Perhaps begin with Michael Shellenberger’s Public, read the original and current Twitter Files, the Missouri v Biden case, details on Canada’s proposed Online Harms Act and add these publications to your reading list. 

• Matt Taibbi and Walter Kirn in their “America This Week” podcast discuss both the NYT’s editor who responded negatively to the Biden administration’s request that they do more to take down Trump and the proposed dystopian Canadian law. Here is the transcript .

• To compare both sides of the rhetoric, here is a favorable presentation of Online Harms Act.

• Michael Shellenberger  interview “Global Elites Fear of Democracy Behind War on Free Speech”.

• Public’s David Agape  “Soros and US Government Behind Conspiracy Theories and Attacks on “Twitter Files Brazil”

• Arguments for and against free speech  https://www.plebity.org/arguments-for-and-against-free-speech/ .

• John Strossel’s article “Censorship: A Global Pandemic”.