WHATEVER BECAME OF DISCIPLINE?

 Allow me to state at the outset that I am neither licensed as nor a practicing mental health practitioner. Although I have trained literally thousands of male and female healthcare providers from various fields, to include psychologists and therapists, I am not an expert in any of the mental health disciplines.

I write this as an individual who has observed, with alarm, the psychologization of virtually any and all crude behaviors. The title of this post was inspired from an episode of “The Liquidator,” in which Jeff Schwarz states, “I need to go to anger management.”

This statement followed on the heels of Jeff throwing a tantrum, not unlike a 3 year-old, because something did not proceed in the manner he desired. My immediate reaction was to think, “You don’t need anger management. You need to grow up!”

Consistent with Schwarz’ character, a female employee became hysterical, to the point of sobbing, tears and shaking, when Schwartz elected to purchase furs to be sold in the warehouse. Please tell me that you do not believe that this response arose naturally from a revulsion of fur coats. It is undeniable that this was a conditioned response, triggered by a so-called “Progressive’s” worldview. Such childlike behavior is deemed endearing to those embracing this particular ideology.

Prisons are filled with those who refuse, yes, I said refuse, to manage their frustration/anger. Like children, when things don’t proceed as intended, they throw their tantrums. Sadly, as putative adults, they often inflict mayhem on society. Too frequently, these tantrums result in domestic violence, abuse of any unfortunate target and even homicide.

Although we don’t like to consider the issue of suicide, this consequence often arises from an inability to cope with one’s environment. There are many facets to this epidemic. However, it appears quite obvious, at least to me, that if an individual manages their behavior, they are unlikely to engage in this activity.

I’ve posted previously about my views on infantilization of society. Efforts to psychologize and excuse infantile behavior in adolescents and adults is not healthy for any societal group.

There are those today who expose their entire families, to include pets, to psychotropic drugs. In lieu of modifying your behavior, why not pop a pill? It is interesting to note that in many instances, the behavior is not improved and those on the psychotropics become more and more dependent on them to make them feel comfortable with themselves.

Dr. Karl Menninger, MD,  world-renowned psychiatrist, wrote “Whatever Became of Sin?” I think that we should examine the question “Whatever Became of Discipline?” 

It is obvious that rates of so-called psychological impairments have increased exponentially. It is undeniable that many children in schools today are taking medications intended to permit them to listen to teachers, avoid engaging in abruptive behavior, remain seated during class periods, avoid conflicts with other students, etc.

Unfortunately, many parents have abdicated child-rearing responsibilities. Excuses for doing so include financial, lack of resources, no desire to deal with childhood antics, etc. Sadly, many households today have only one parent. These are certainly challenges, but not justification to abdicate this responsibility to others.

For those of you who wish to engage in speculation that this author cannot relate to the foregoing challenges, au contraire. I am the seventh of seven. My father died, at 44 years of age, when I was six years old. My mother never remarried. My mother did not believe in government assistance (e.g., Welfare, etc.). I began working at 6 years of age, hawking newspapers, etc. We didn’t want to refer to ourselves as “poor.” We preferred “financially challenged.” My mother worked a minimum of 2 jobs and my sister and I were the quintessential “latch-key” kids.

I frequently hear adults say, “I can’t sit still,” “I have ADHD,” “I need anger management,” ad infinitum. Yes, you can sit still, you simply don’t want to. (Obviously, there are rare neurological conditions that result in involuntary movements.) It is unlikely that you have ADHD, whatever that encompasses. It is very likely that your immaturity is such that you simply won’t respectfully listen to or observe what is being presented.

Finally, it is very likely that you don’t need anger management. You just need to grow up!

WHAT IS TRUTH?

 I recently had an opportunity to spend some time with my now-grown son, transporting him to a destination a few hours away. In my naïveté, I thought that it would be enjoyable to engage in some thought-experiments to pass the time.

It is my custom to establish a “glossary-of-terms” prior to commencing such discussions. This is done in an effort to minimize confusion in the use of terms employed. Sounds like a good idea, right?

My first question was, “Do you believe ‘truth’ exists?” My son’s response reminded me of the “Calvin & Hobbes” comic-strip in which Calvin is convinced he is well prepared for an upcoming examination. However, Calvin is stymied by the first thing he sees at the top of the exam - “Name.” 

Calvin’s consternation becomes readily apparent, when he exclaims, “Name! Whose name?”

My son was immediately on the defensive. After indicating that he did agree with its existence, I asked him how he would define “truth.” He told me that he was certain that it would be easy to define, but provided no definition.

It does, at first blush, appear easy to define. Is it?

“Pilate said to Jesus, ‘So you are a king, are you?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.’ Pilate said to him, ‘What is truth?’” (John 18:37-38).

Is “truth” easily addressed by seeking solace in reality? Einstein stated, “Reality is an illusion.”

May we simply address the issue by stating, “I’ll know it when I see it?” In attempting to define pornography,  Justice Potter Stewart stated: “I have reached the conclusion . . . I know it when I see it.“ (Jacobellis v. Ohio 1964)

An enthymeme (Greek: ἐνθύμημα, enthýmēma) is a form of rational appeal, or deductive argument. It is also known as a rhetorical syllogism and is used in oratorical practice. While the syllogism is used in dialectic, or the art of logical discussion, the enthymeme is used in rhetoric, or the art of public speaking. Enthymemes are usually developed from premises that accord with the audience’s view of the world and what is taken to be common sense.

Unfortunately, if Kierkegaard’s assertion that truth is subjective is correct, it becomes readily apparent that the perception is likely to vary from subject to subject. If truth is not objective, can truth actually exist? If truth does not exist, can we “truly” (whatever that may mean) know anything?

I am reminded of a quote attributed to Mark Twain: “It ain’t what he don’t know that concerns me. It’s what he knows that ain’t so.”

Jesus said, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. He also stated, “I am the way, the truth and the life.” In John 3:21, He informs us “[H]e who practices the truth comes to the light . . ..” He also said, “My Word is truth.”

That is sufficiently puzzling, but what if you reject Jesus’ teachings? Upon what, if any, standard are we to rely? Locke concluded that truth is that which responds to reality. Perhaps, we may best define truth as that which coheres to a referent. Does that really resolve the issue?

For those who proclaim truth is reality as perceived by God, it appears to discount the omniscience attributed to the Triune God. Is it naive to suggest that God perceives rather than knows?

Some religions simply state that God’s name is truth. Unfortunately, for those who either don’t believe in God or refuse to accept that statement as fact, what is “their” truth? Does “absolute” truth exist or must we accept the relative nature of truth? Is truth merely subjective or may we demonstrate that it is objective?

As we concluded our discussion, my son acknowledged that he was suspicious of the intent behind the inquiry as to whether he believed truth existed. This suspicion, per my son, was predicated upon his assumption that the inquiry arose from something obtained from Fox News. My son stated that Fox News lies.

I informed him that I neither watch nor listen to Fox News. It is naive, however, to conclude that any news network either lies consistently or is truthful consistently. Don Lemon, a CNN commentator, stated the we need not do our own research. Rather, we may rely on CNN to tell us what we need to know.

I was reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s observation that the man who read nothing at all was better informed than he who reads only the newspaper. (I suspect that the same would apply today to any truncated news sources.) As the cognoscenti proclaim, “Ad fontes” (“To the sources”).

It is unfortunate that a large segment of our society censors the resources on which they rely for information predicated on political ideology. Censorship is a powerful tool used to control societies. Nations such as North Korea, China and Russia are very attentive to what citizens in those countries see and hear.

Although Justice Stewart felt certain that he “knew it” when he saw it, when it comes to truth, we fool ourselves into believing that there is a general consensus as to what it is that we see when we encounter “truth”.

When Pilate asked Jesus what is truth, I really wish that Jesus had responded by stating “what,” not “who,” “truth” is.

In the fable, Don’t Argue With A Donkey, we find the following:

The Donkey said to the Tiger, “The grass is blue.”

The Tiger replied, “No, the grass is green.”

The discussion heated up, and the two decided to submit it to arbitration.

And for this, they went before the Lion, the King of the Jungle.

Already before reaching the forest clearing, where the Lion was sitting on his throne, the Donkey began to shout, “His Highness, is it true that the grass is blue?”

The Lion replied, “True, the grass is blue.”

The Donkey hurried and continued, “The Tiger disagrees with me and contradicts and annoys me, please punish him.”

The king then declared, “The Tiger will be punished with 5 years of silence.”

The Donkey jumped cheerfully and went on his way, content and repeating, “The Grass Is Blue . . ..”

The Tiger accepted his punishment, but before he asked the Lion, “Your Majesty, why have you punished me, after all, the grass is green?”

The Lion replied, “In fact, the grass is green.”

The Tiger asked, “So why are you punishing me?”

The Lion replied, “That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is not possible for a brave and intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with a Donkey, and on top of that come and bother me with that question.”

It is tempting to try to convince others of mere perceptions of truth. One of the worst ways to waste your precious time is to argue with the fool and fanatic. If you observe them, you suddenly realize that they are not the least bothered about truth or reality. These individuals accept only their own beliefs.

Tempting though it may be, don’t engage in pointless arguments. Too often, we meet people who, blinded by ego, refuse to even attempt to understand opposing views, obstinately and desperately clinging to their own beliefs. For them, it is a zero-sum game. They must be right irrespective of the illogical position taken.

It is said, “When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent.” Your peace and quiet are too precious to waste time with those who refuse to hear. “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.” (Prov. 26:4)

Once during a high-profile government hearing, a critic accused John Maynard Keynes of being inconsistent. Keynes reportedly answered as follows, “When events change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

Truth is a great treasure. To know truth is the greatest privilege any man can enjoy in this life. Truth is said to be without doubt the richest treasure anyone can possess. We are promised that if we seek it, we will find it. May we pursue truth throughout our lives.

MEN WITHOUT CHESTS IN AMERICA’S PULPITS

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.” (C. S. Lewis - Abolition of Man)

As a preface to this article, I must confess that I hold pastors in very high esteem. I would concur with Phillips Brooks when he wrote: “If any man is called to preach, don’t stoop to be a king.” 

Furthermore, I acknowledge that the reference to “men without chests” could apply to a large swath of Christians who sit by, idly watching their nation careen into an abyss. Many of us are like those parishioners who merely sang louder in an effort to drown out the screaming of Jews as they passed by, packed liked cattle in to train cars headed for Auschwitz.

We don’t want to appear “unwoke” or trigger someone’s delicate psyche. I address this to pastors serving in pulpits because now, more than ever, we need men of courage to stand in the breach, tending the flock, leading the way, and making it crystal clear that our lives belong to Jesus Christ, we are not our own. Yes, we have been bought with a price only the King of Glory could pay.

Pastors are often referred to as shepherds.  Historically, these were men charged with protecting flocks. These men were tough and filled-to-the-brim with courage. If required, they laid down their lives for the flock and guarded them patiently and passionately. Many a ravenous wolf or thief would threaten the flock, only to be met with a thunderous blow, meted out by the shepherd, via a staff, rock or any object that could be employed to thwart the enemies’ efforts.

It was men in pulpits who exhorted Christians to ready themselves for battle and to defend America’s liberty. At the time of the American Revolution, these shepherds placed themselves in harm’s way, positioned on the frontlines of battle. Their armament was often a musket in one hand and a Bible in the other. 

Today, we need shepherds in our churches to assume their rightful roles to protect their flocks. We don’t need men in pulpits who cower in fear of losing tax exemptions or falling out of favor with so-called elites who scoff at the Christian-message and stand ready to destroy the livelihood of anyone with the courage to speak against their ideology.

We are at a point in our history when we need a virtuous church, unafraid of the headwinds that it will undoubtedly face. Yes, many may have to confront earthly powers possessing authority to cast them in prison. Irrespective of the cost, it is a dying spirituality, not climate change, that poses the real existential threat. The time for passivity is long past.

We must find men filled with boldness, not cowardice. If our pastors are unwilling to slay the ravening wolves at our church doors, why call them? I am reminded of Patrick Henry’s proclamation, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

If our churches go the way of many great cathedrals in Europe, our demise will have as its predicate ecclesiastical complacency and cowardice. 

Are our pastors willing to even address clear biblical teaching? Many are fearful of presenting patently clear passages such as:

“Stop sinning!” (John 5:14)

“Flee fornication.” (1 Corinthians 6:18, KJV)

“God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” (Hebrews 13:4)

“If you owe taxes, pay taxes.” (Romans 13:7)

“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9b-10)

“And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature together with its passions and appetites.” (Galatians 5:24, Amplified)

“I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28)

“[A]ll liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone.” (Revelation 21:8)

“Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26b-27)

“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery . . ..” (Ephesians 5:18)

“Do not let unwholesome [foul, profane, worthless, vulgar] words ever come out of your mouth. . ..” (Ephesians 4:29, Amplified)

These are merely a few of the apparently verboten passages seldom, if ever, addressed in today’s pulpits. Many pastors are contented to merely robotically present liturgical pericopes that coincide with the liturgical calendar, totally ignoring the poison creeping into our churches.

Tragically, we have made men without chests, placed them in our pulpits, and expect from parishioners virtue and enterprise. For too long, we have laughed at honor and are shocked to find the spiritual edifice of our churches crumbling and to encounter traitors in our pulpits, our pews, our seminaries, our schools, etc.

The following is often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville. However, it appears to be a misattribution. The quote likely originated from two English ministers, Andrew Reed and James Matheson. (These ministers were touring the country about the same time Alexis de Tocqueville’s was in the United States.): “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the greatness and genius of America. America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

I adjure you, America. Awaken from your slumber. Seek men who possess courage, virtue and honor who are unwilling to compromise in preaching God’s truth to fill your pulpits! 

 

JUDICIAL TYRANNY

 Thomas Jefferson expressed numerous concerns regarding this topic. Illustrative of his concern was the following: “The case of Marbury and Madison is continually cited by bench and bar, as if it were settled law, without any animadversions on its being merely an obiter dissertation of the Chief Justice … . But the Chief Justice says, “there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.” True, there must; but … . The ultimate arbiter is the people …. — Letter to Judge William Johnson, June 1823

Prior to commencing our discussion of this topic, let’s review a few fundamentals as they pertain to that which is classified as “judicial.”

To make certain that we are all on the same page, please allow the following to describe the term used herein as judicial: (1) of or relating to a judgment, the function of judging, the administration of justice, or the judiciary; (2) belonging to the branch of government that is charged with trying all cases that involve the government (i.e., state and federal) and with the administration of justice within its jurisdiction.

The Constitution of the United States divides the federal government into three branches to make sure no individual or group will have too much power: (1) Legislative—Makes laws (Congress, comprised of the House of Representatives and Senate); (2) Executive—Carries out laws (president, vice president, Cabinet, most federal agencies); and (3) Judicial—Evaluates laws (Supreme Court and other courts).

It is important to note that each branch of government can change acts of the other branches: (a) The president can veto legislation created by Congress and nominates heads of federal agencies; (b) Congress confirms or rejects the president’s nominees and can remove the president from office in exceptional circumstances; and (c) The Justices of the Supreme Court, who can overturn unconstitutional laws, are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Thus, the ability of each branch to respond to the actions of the other branches. This is commonly referred to as the system of checks and balances.

In what ways are federal and state courts similar/different? Article III of the Constitution invests the judicial power of the United States in the federal court system. Article III, Section 1 specifically creates the U.S. Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create the lower federal courts. However, the Constitution and laws of each state establish the state courts. 

A court of last resort, often known as a Supreme Court, is usually the highest court. Some states also have an intermediate Court of Appeals. Below these appeals courts are the state trial courts. Some are referred to as Circuit or District Courts.

It is vital that we recall that the three branches of government are, by design, coequal. Furthermore, the intent of creating a judiciary is to preclude having individuals take matters into their own hands.

Obviously, criminal courts were instituted to prevent having citizens subjected to physical, emotional, financial, etc. harm and to punish those who perpetrate the criminal conduct. Efforts to rehabilitate those who commit crimes have, by-and-large, been terminated. Criminals are warehoused and once released are often more hardened against societal mores than when the punishment commenced.

Civil courts are designed to make harmed individuals whole. They also often impose fines/sanctions on defendants who are found liable intended to avoid future harm and to discourage others from engaging in such activities.

There are many other courts (e.g., Equity, Bankruptcy, Family Law, etc.) that focus on more well defined injuries/harms.

There are myriad administrative agencies (cf. https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/d#current-letter) that have been created to develop rules to implement the legislation Congress passes. This area of Law (Administrative Law) is often referred to as the 4th branch of Government.

I want to make clear that by “judicial tyranny,” I do not intend to limit this discussion to judges and courts alone. Rather, I intend to express concerns related to all agencies established to ensure justice in America. Whether we are talking about judges, courts, congressmen, law enforcement et al. These entities all bear responsibility for the tyrannical manner in which justice has lost any semblance of neutrality. We may no longer assert, with straight faces, that justice is blind.

Judicial Tyranny may occur in many forms. It may also occur via acts of either commission or omission. Having practiced Law for 20 years and listened to hours of testimony given before numerous state legislatures, I have concluded that one must be insincere to state that the 2020 Election was the most secure in history. One must also be naive to assert that there was no evidence presented to triers-of-facts (e.g., judges) to support claims of wholesale voter fraud. 

The fact that judges refused to allow evidence to be presented is certainly not evidence that widespread fraud did not occur. The extent to which it may have impacted the 2020 Election will likely never be known because it is not de rigueur to grant any credence whatsoever to such claims.

Interestingly, our Constitution has served as a model for other nations. It has served as the written document which encapsulates fundamental principles such as those described above as an American ideal. Freedom loving people around the world have taken great interest in and benefitted from these principles. 

Constitutional principles emanating from this American ideal has spread to Poland, France, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, Yugoslavia, Hungary, and the Philippines. Other countries have also incorporated this ideal into documents upon which these nations are governed. A credible case can be made that our most valuable export has been our Constitution. (Heritage.org)

Although most would agree that reading and understanding the Constitution is as important today as it was at the Nation’s founding, there is a paucity of citizens, to include attorneys, judges, and members of Congress, who are facile with this document. Many today consider it outmoded and not worthy of notice. (It is amazing that, absent knowledge of its contents, so many wish to toss it on the ash heap of history.)

When analyzing the Constitution, there are 3 guidelines incorporated to interpret it: (1) the Constitution is a written document; (2) the Constitution “can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it.” (What is that authority? We the people.); and (3) ascertain what is meant by “we the people”.

The 4 primary methods of interpreting the Constitution are: Originalism, Textualism, Pragmatism and Stare Decisis

The Declaration of Independence expressly states that all people have inalienable rights—among them, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights, the U.S. Constitution creates a government of the people to “establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense . . ..”

In lieu of securing our borders and protecting our citizens, the Government has abrogated its responsibility by placing illegal immigrants’ rights ahead of its citizens and allowing many urban areas to be turned into war zones. All for the sake of “wokeness.”

In what ways is this judicial tyranny? As I said, this may occur via both commission and omission. Recently, we’ve been made aware of militant protests occurring outside of Supreme Court Justices’ homes, in clear violation of federal law. However, the DOJ refuses to intervene. 

Recently, Associate Justice Kavanaugh had to exit a restaurant through a rear door due to militant protestors. CongressWoman Waters encouraged protestors to get in Conservatives’ faces and tell them they are not wanted in public places. The DOJ remains silent.

Federal agencies are weaponized against individuals due to “un-woke” ideologies. The courts refuse to intervene. Numerous individuals remain in solitary confinement, in violation of habeas corpus rights, under the pretense of having engaged in insurrection. All of this at a time when looters and violent mobs ravage urban centers, burn federal buildings, terrorize citizens, and damage millions of dollars worth of property. The DOJ remains inert.

Prosecutors refuse to enforce the law because the law is politically incorrect. Yet, relatively minor infractions are prosecuted to the fullest extent if the perpetrators have violated “woke” ideology.

Judges allow ludicrous claims/charges to be asserted against those who engage in conduct inconsistent with the judges’ point of view, while at the same time refusing to even grant hearings on meritorious claims.

Furthermore, the Judiciary has arrogated powers to itself that are clearly unconstitutional. Judges are attorneys in black robes. They are not intended to serve as legislators. Sadly, legislators have abdicated their authority, particularly with issues that take courage to embrace, and permitted judges, as it were, to enact legislation.

In Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he stated, “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

As previously noted, Thomas Jefferson had a great deal to say about judicial tyranny. In a Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804, he wrote: “Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” 

Jefferson also noted:  “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . ..” (Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)

Jefferson believed that “the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government.” He went on to conclude that, “In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account.” (Letter to A. Coray, October 31, 1823)

 Jefferson plainly had an answer against judicial tyranny: “One single object… [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” (Letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825)

Unfortunately, this judicial tyranny will continue so long as factions within our society seek to serve their interests solely, irrespective of the institutions created to ensure justice for all citizens, regardless of race, creed, political affiliation, religion, sexual preference, etc. Courageously express your freedoms, don’t attempt to force your preferences on others. Herein lies the danger of weaponizing those charged with protecting all citizens against those with whom we disagree.

If one is sufficiently persuaded that a particular issue would benefit society in a meaningful way, work with those individuals elected to create relevant legislation. You may even offer to assist in drafting legislation and arguing your case before appropriate tribunals. Don’t cudgel those with contrary views, attempting to destroy their livelihood, creating an unsafe environment, etc. I am often amazed how illiberal those who call themselves Liberal are. Many claim to be Progressives, but ironically fail to see how truly regressive their pet positions are. 

If you doubt this, examine for yourselves the calls for mob violence. The Media falsely identify as peaceful protests those instances in which millions of dollars of property are vandalized, stores are looted, vehicles set ablaze, police stations torched, etc. Are these activities Progressive? As Adrian Monk would say, “I could be wrong. But, of course, I’m not.”

Judicial tyranny often serves to silence those who object to what is going on around them, but are not willing to lose their jobs, livelihoods, relationships, etc. in what appears to be a hopeless situation. After all, the very institutions established to prevent this situation are often the perpetrators.

As George Costanza would say, “You know, People. We are living in a society here!”

INFANTILIZATION OF AMERICA

It is becoming difficult to recognize our own Country. It is almost impossible to know whether parents are raising children or children are raising parents. Greta Thunberg is an excellent example of this infantilization. Imagine having a teenager with little-to-no real world experience lecturing adults around the world about a coming apocalypse that she is certain will come shortly because of the agitprop to which she has been exposed.

John Adams wrote, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Unfortunately, young people are not being educated and taught how to think. Rather, they are being propagandized. As commentator Don Lemon advised, we should not perform our own research. We should simply rely on the information spoon-fed via various “Progressive” media outlets. 

I am sharing the following, not to tug on emotional strings - although it is emotional - but to share one view that appears to be common among Americans today. 

“On the occasion of his 100th birthday, United States Marine Corps and World War 2 veteran Carl Dekel reflected on his long life and the blessings he’s enjoyed in an interview with Tampa’s Fox 13. The Silver Star recipient recalled the Battle of Guadalcanal and his gratitude that the Lord brought him home and says that he would do it again if he had to — and if he were the right age.

“‘Most important thing in my life was serving my country. I don’t think I could take away from that…It was an honor for me to serve my country and if I had to do it again and I was the same age. I would do it. I guarantee you.

“‘You just remember everything’s beautiful and live every day to the fullest. Just enjoy everything you possibly can. And here I sit at 100. They tell me I’m 100. I don’t believe it sometimes. Because I don’t need to worry about age. I’m not going to, I just keep on keeping on.”

“He spoke about how beautiful life is and the world is then broke down crying, saying, ‘This is not the country we fought for.’

“‘People don’t realize what they have … Nowadays I am so upset because the things we did, and the things we fought for, and the boys that died for it, it’s all gone down the drain. Our country is going to hell in a handbasket. We haven’t got the country we had when I was raised, not at all.’” (https://redstate.com/levon/2022/07/02/wwii-veteran-breaks-down-in-tears-the-things-we-fought-for-the-boys-that-died-for-it-its-all-gone-down-the-drain-n587731)

We are living in an era in which it is increasingly difficult to recruit individuals to serve in the Armed Forces. Various reasons are cited, but certainly many neither respect our institutions nor have the courage to either risk their lives or interrupt their current routine in service to America.

Although there are many reasons to love America, there can be no doubt that it is increasingly difficult to readily identify those reasons for young people who never learn what there is to admire.

Can we blame Greta for her alarmism? She truly believes, I suspect, what she proclaims and has never been exposed to contrary notions. In today’s society, if the information does not fit a prescribed narrative, it is dismissed as a lie without exploration or shouted down via the “heckler’s veto.”

Can we blame young people for not wanting to serve in our Armed Forces? Throughout their “educational” experience, they have heard nothing but how racist, bigoted, tyrannical, and monstrous Americans are. At home and abroad our citizens proclaim their embarrassment for being American.  

One of President Obama’s first acts as POTUS was to commence his “Apology Tour.” This act was undertaken by the first Black American President. FLOTUS told the world that she was proud to be an American “for the first time” when Barack was elected President. These actions portend a corrosive view toward America. Of course, if you aren’t Black you are excluded from any consideration. After all, how could you possibly know anything about the Nation in which you have resided throughout your entire life if you can’t look at it through the prism of Blackness?

According to a Fox News poll released June 30, 2022, only 39 percent of respondents claimed they were “proud of the country today.” This was a decline of 12 points from June 2017, the last time the question was asked. Furthermore, this was a decline of 30 points since June 2011.

Perhaps, Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s “spiritual advisor,” was correct, “The chickens are coming home to roost.” Can we, with straight-faces, really argue surprise? To whom are young people to turn? Upon what are young people to rely?

They are being told that God does not exist, they are evolved from inorganic matter, and, per Dawkins, they are merely dancing to their DNA. What possible reason do they have to be proud of the Nation against which they are being radicalized?

Where are the parents? Historically, great emphasis was placed on the family-unit. Today, the family has been supplanted by materialistic pursuits. Children are being taken out of the home at younger and younger ages for prolonged intervals to serve needs that are antithetical to family cohesiveness.

Yes, we are reminded that life is simply more expensive, requiring two-parent incomes just to make ends meet. But is this the primary reason?

Fewer children are living in two-parent homes. Many couples no longer even commit to marriage, further devaluing family stability. Of course, academics will assert contrary positions ad infinitum. As Orwell said, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

It is true that, in our youth, we often think that we have all relevant knowledge. In “The Letters of John and Abigail Adams,” Adams states, “The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know.…”

Is the world running out of adults? If so, it will likely take a cataclysmic event to transmute our society into a manifest adulthood. In the absence of radical changes in the trajectory of America there is no rational basis to assume such a change will occur.

UCLA Professor Joseph Manson, 62-year-old Anthropology professor at UCLA since 1992 (received tenure in 2000) surrendered tenure in 2022, explaining that “the woke takeover” of higher education has made freedom of expression on campus virtually impossible. He analogized his need to surrender tenure thusly, “But when the leopard comes for your colleague, what I have witnessed is that something like 99% of people find a way to wiggle out of this obvious next step. They tell themselves the person getting their face eaten deserved it. Or that the leopard was just particularly hungry that day.”

In 1 Corinthians 13:11 (NLT), we find the following: “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.” Sadly, the perpetuation of infantilization, precludes putting away childish things.

Parents have abrogated their responsibility in raising their children. Children are seldom disciplined in meaningful ways. Childlike behavior is tolerated and, in lieu of discipline, mind altering medications are often employed. So-called adults refuse to celebrate the birth of America because a Supreme Court decision was inconsistent with their ideology.

What could possibly go wrong? We are told there are no absolutes in this “post modern” era. Children inform parents of their “own” realities and insist on compliance with demands that these realities be respected, embraced, and recognized as being acceptable. It is becoming a disturbing trend to learn of parents being criminally prosecuted for attempting to instill appropriate behavior.

Alexander Pope wrote, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien as to be hated needs but to be seen; yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, we first endure, then pity, then embrace.” We’ve endured infantile behavior being extended into a putative adulthood. We originally pitied and attempted to ameliorate infantile behavior. Today, sadly, we have come to embrace what heretofore would have been impermissible.

At the age of eighteen years, Bertrand Russell in his, “Why I Am Not A Christian,” based his conclusions on John Stuart Mill’s pronouncement that if God exists, He must have a cause. This arises out of a juvenile misunderstanding of the Law of Causality which asserts that every effect must have a cause, not that everything must have a cause. Although the premise does not prove God’s existence, it certainly proves that the existence of an “uncaused cause” does not violate the Law of a Causality. 

If we neither recognize nor address the infantilization of America, our future is bleak. May God awaken us and give us the wisdom to change this Nation from “woke” to awake!