The Anti-Socialist's Creed

 "The first and must fundamental principal of all, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property." (Pope Leo XIII Rerum Novarum)

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God...anarchy and tyranny  commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist." (John Adams)

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government, that is not a just government,...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has...is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest." (James Madison)

***

1. I believe in property.

2. I believe in the rights of private citizens to own property.

3. I believe in the rights of private citizens to own, not only property, but also the tools of production.

4. I believe that the principal foundation of true social and economic freedom is the ownership of private property.

5. I believe that the right to own private property and the tools to production is not only economically expedient, but is also one of the inalienable rights of man.

6. I do not believe that any economic system can be truly successful where property and the tools of production are wrested from the hands of private citizens, placed into the hands of the State and controlled by State appointed officers or committees.

7. I do not believe that Socialism is good.

8. I believe that Socialism carries within itself an inherent element of totalitarianism.

9. I believe that Socialism is morally unjustifiable, and leads to various moral abuses.

10. I believe that Socialism arises naturally from the abuses of Capitalism as an obvious but falacious antidote.

11. I believe that the State control of insurance, property, production,  transportation, and all manner of industry opens wide the door for the enactment of laws which are opposed to the morals and consciences of private citizens.

12. I believe that the State control of communication and media tends automatically to propogand and dishonesty-- to the control of the minds of individuals.

13. I believe that practically speaking, Socialism is little different from Capitalism. Both dispossess the private citizen of property. Both require us to lean on the justice and charity of a select few for our health, food, economic security, and our futures.

14. I believe that Socialism reduces personal incentive and breeds laziness.

15. I believe that Socialism, by reducing the individual to a mere element or particle of society, and by subjugating his/her personhood to the State, constitutes an affront to human dignity and freedom.

16.  I do not believe that Socialism is the antidote for the abuses of laissez-faire, mega-corporate Capitalism.

17. I do not believe that Socialism is in keeping with humanitarian goals.

18. I do not believe that Socialism and true freedom can coexist.

19. I believe that Socialism is altogether opposed to the mind of the Church and the true exercise of religion.

20. I believe that Socialism is an utterly pernicious political theory.

***

Before proceeding, let me define what I mean by the word Socialism. In my previous post on Capitalism I used Communism and Socialism interchangeably, and promised an explanation in a future post. Here is that explanation.
  
Let me offer first the words of Hilaire Belloc: "Socialism is a political theory according to which people would be happier and better if the means of production....belonged to the Government instead of belonging, as they mainly do now, to private citizens and private corporations. This is the only exclusive meaning of Socialism. All the other wobbly ideas that have been tacked on to it by its enemies or by its friends-- that it is "atheistic", or that it involves sexual "immorality", that it is "progressive", that it is "Christian"--have nothing to do with the one proposition which alone distinguishes it from all other policies." (An Examination of Socialism)

Herein lies the key point: control of the means of production by the State. While I am fully aware that it would be a great error to assume, for example, that Fabian Socialism and Marxist Socialism are the same, or that Canada and China share the same political atmosphere, yet this one key factor, this "one proposition", pertains to all Socialist theories. Now it is important to add, as Belloc does a little further on in the paper cited above, that nearly all Socialist states allow some ownership of private property. However, that is generally little more than luxury items, or non-productive property. Thus, the control of productive property, or the means of production, by the State is the corner stone of Socialism.

We also must not confuse the Catholic idea of social justice with socialism. While both ideologies may share many common goals and sentiments, they are at root radically opposed to one another. Socialism would place the control, application, and administration of social justice solely in the hands of the State, that most treacherous of caregivers.

It is with great interest that I note that many of my personal heroes who were staunch foes of liberal Capitalism were as equally dedicated to defeating Socialism. Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Pope John Paul II--all these men were unequivocal in their condemnation of both laissez-faire Capitalism and Socialism. They also all happened to be Catholic. In fact, Pope Pius XI had this to say in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: "We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after if has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth." (Emphasis mine)

From what source then springs this dual opposition to Capitalism and Socialism among so many Catholic thinkers? And why the Church's strong condemnation of Socialism, which after all, only seeks to more efficiently advance the cause of much of the Church's own teaching on social justice?

I think that perhaps the most simple answer to this question consists of just one word--PROPERTY.

It is here that Church first collides with both Socialism and Capitalism, and it is here that the similarity between the two systems begin to become apparent. I know that it is generally assumed that Capitalism and Socialism are two radically different political and economic theories, yet in practice they share a similar result. Both lead to the dispossession of the private citizen of property and the tools of production. Capitalism tends to automatically vest the control of the vast majority of productive property into the hands of a few wealthy and powerful individual or corporations, creating vast numbers of wage slaves, or a proletarian state. Socialism vests the control of productive property into the hands of the State and State officers. Chesterton once observed that the problem with Capitalism was not that it created too many Capitalists, but that it created too few; and one might also observe that Socialism does not make fewer proletariats, but more. Both systems dispossess the worker of freedom, property, and the tools of production, and make him utterly dependent upon either a corporations' wage, or State distribution. Socialism and Capitalism are not so radically different at all. Which would you rather choose to trust with your freedom, healthcare, financial security, retirement, food, shelter, clothing,etc.-- the Corporation, or the State?

I choose neither.

I choose property.

Let me note here that the ownership of private property is of immense concern to the Catholic Church, and is considered an integral facet of human rights and dignity. From St. Thomas Aquinas to Pope Benedict XVI the Church has declared the necessity of widespread ownership. This reason alone would be sufficient to understand the Church's condemnation of Socialism, but there are many more reasons.

In a future post I hope to lay out several of the more crucial of these reasons. But let property suffice for now, and let us remember that most of the other problems associated with Socialism could be righted by the widespread reestablishment of private ownership.

"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person-- every person --needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need....In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialistic conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live 'by bread alone'--a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human." (Pope Benedict XVI Deus Caritas Est)

.

The Anti-Capitalist's Creed

"Have I made myself clear? If not, I will repeat for the third time, and in its briefest terms, the formula which is the kernel  of my whole thesis. 
The Capitalist State breeds a Collectivist theory which in action produces something utterly different from Collectivism: to wit, the Servile State." 
(Hilaire Belloc The Servile State)

1. I believe in property.

2. I believe in the right of private citizens to own  property.

3. I do not believe that a healthy economy can exist in any society when the majority of its citizens are dispossessed of  ownership.
4. I believe that not only property, but also the tools of production, should be as widely distributed to, and owned by as many private citizens as possible.

5. I believe that the control of the majority of private property and the tools of production by a few rich and powerful people or corporations is detrimental to the economy and opposed to the dignity of the private citizen.
6. I do not believe that Capitalism is good.
7. I believe that Capitalism is rooted in greed.
8. I believe that Capitalism, unchecked, leads automatically to the dispossession of the majority of private ownership, and instead vests the ownership and control of property and the tools of production in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and corporations.
9. I believe that Capitalism, by creating a Proletarian State, breeds, in Belloc's words, a Collectivist theory.
10. I believe that Capitalism is opposed to freedom and the native dignity of the human person.
11. I believe that Capitalism is an inherently unstable economic theory, which automatically tends toward self-destruction.
12. I do not believe that Capitalism is the economic savior of the world.
13. I do not believe that Capitalism is divinely inspired.
14. I believe that Capitalism is bad.

***

There, I have said it: "I believe that Capitalism is bad." And I choose to make this statement here, within the context of this post, hoping that those who read this statement will also read far enough to understand precisely what I mean, and why I am opposed to Capitalism. If I were to make such a statement on my Facebook page, or on some other public forum, I would no doubt be harshly criticized by many and generally misunderstood on all sides.

I remember once having dinner with some family members, and making a comment which was critical of our present abusive, laissez-faire, mega-corporate Capitalism. A family member retorted quickly, and somewhat accusingly, "Well! Socialism doesn't work very well, either." The obvious assumption was that if I was not a Capitalist, then I must be a Socialist.

I sincerely hope that those of you reading this post will have read the preceding lines carefully enough, that the clear statements of my firm belief in the widespread ownership of private property will be sufficient to dispel any misconception that I am a Socialist. I am emphatically not a Socialist. If further clarification is needed, allow me to add one more clause to my creed:

15. I believe that Socialism is bad.

Nonetheless, the assumption is an easy one to make, and the unfortunate notion still persists that there are only two viable economic theories in the world--Socialism and Capitalism-- and that if one is not a Capitalist, one must automatically be a Socialist. 

There may be many reasons why this artificial dilemma exists, but surely the events of the last century, in particular the revolutions, political and social upheavals that have marked the last one hundred years of world history, are sufficient to explain  this erroneous dichotomy. The Marxist economic theories of the late nineteenth century, the Bolshevist Revolution of 1917, two World Wars, Cuba, the Russian missile crisis and the Cold War, Vietnam and Korea: all these tumultuous events have forced upon our consciousness in various ways the great evils of Communist Collectivism. And each time we see the the victorious foes of Communism in the Capitalist nations of the West. There is an old adage that says that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. This statement, however, is dangerously false. The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend at all, and may at times be little more than an uneasy ally. However, this battle between Capitalism and Communism has cast these two ideas into ever sharper relief, drowned out any voice that calls for a third option, and left most of us with the dreadfully false idea that Capitalism is our friend, and the friend of all those who would be politically, socially, and economically free.

I should pause to note here that I am not confusing Communism with Socialism (or else I shall be soundly condemned for ignorance!), but I shall clarify my interchangeable use of these terms in a later post.

Had the events of last century been different, we might have found ourselves living in a very different world today. Prior to, and for some decades after the Bolshevist Revolution, many writers, thinkers, and workers raised clear and intelligent voices against the evils of Capitalism, while simultaneously condemning Socialism, and offering a viable third alternative.

Unfortunately, the momentous events cited above, coupled with Capitalist greed and political control, have relegated these clear voices and intelligent thinkers to oblivion, and left us with an artificial choice between to evils.

However, I firmly believe that whenever we are presented with two courses, both of which are bad, and both of which lead to destruction, it is incumbent upon us, before trying to determine which is the lesser of two evils, to first strive to ascertain whether or not there might be some third way, unknown to us; perhaps untried, perhaps long forgotten.

I listen to the arguments of fellow citizen, political legerdemain, presidential debates, the rhetoric and ideas of liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, right and left, Socialists and Capitalists; and I feel convinced that both sides are utterly missing the point.

Do we really have only two options, or is there a third option? Not only is there a third option, but is it perhaps possible that this option may not even be new? An option that may have in various ways been tried in the past, and to varying degrees been been proved successful? And is it not imperative now, that we earnestly search out this third option, adapt it as necessary, and apply it to our present situation?

More on this to come.

Mea Maxima Culpa

"'Always after a defeat and a respite, the Shadow takes another shape and grows again'.
'I wish it need not have happened in my time' said Frodo.
'So do I,' said Gandalf, 'and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not up to them to decide. All we have  to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.'"
(J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring)

In the midst of all the confusing feelings (fear, anger, helplessness, frustration) that have marked for me the outcome of last night's Presidential election, one clear thought continues to force its way to the surface of my consciousness. That one thought is not the sense of bitter frustration that all recent efforts seem to have dissipated in failure like a breath of wind in the night. (That thought would be a lie.) It is not anger towards those whom I deem as blind to facts, or else too self-centered to see any future past their own desires. (Such a thought would lay a road of blame that leads to vengeance.) Nor is it the thought of fear and despair in the face of the coming storm of government control, religious intolerance, and persecution of conscience. (Despair is sin against the Greatness of God, and excessive fear is weakness of Faith.) No, that one clear thought is none of these. That one clear thought is this: Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
"Through my fault,
Through my fault,
Through my most grievous fault."
(Here strike the breast three times.)

We must in this time come to grips, as Catholics, that by and large the American Catholic Church has long failed the American people. And more precisely, it has failed Catholics. We have failed ourselves. It will do us no good at all now to point fingers and lay blame. It will benefit us nothing to wring our hands and say, "How could they? How could this have happened?" It has not happened through ignorance, bad candidate image, or poor campaign strategy. Backlash against Bush had nothing to do with it. The economy had nothing to do with it. Hurricane Sandy and the media cannot be our scapegoats now. It has happened because our culture is ill, and all too little of the true Light has entered its darkness. And were we not the ones charged with the task of changing the cultures in which we live? Were we not supposed to be light and salt and witness for all the world? Must we not now shoulder some measure of the burden and responsibility?

Mea culpa.

When I say that the American Church has failed the American people, I do not principally mean now. We have many marvelous priests, and numerous courageous bishops (Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop Charles Chaput, etc.). There are growing tides of converts, there are young and conservative families, there is a change in the wind. But for far too long now the Church has failed her own children. For nearly fifty years (or more) the seminaries have fostered liberalism, agnosticism, and rebellion. Liberal priests and bishops, eagerly misapplying Vatican II have condoned birth control, spurned the importance of confession, made a mockery of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, discouraged traditional prayers such as the Rosary, and rebelled against our Holy Father. Good catechesis  nearly disappeared, homosexual priests continued in their clerical duties, pedophiles were hidden, and increasing numbers of Catholics  became cultural Catholics with no understanding of the great Faith of their fathers. Self-declared Catholic politicians have supported abortion policies. "Good" Catholics have pushed for the ordination of women priests. Fr. Matthew Fox performed his New Age techno masses. And a majority (52%) of American Catholics just voted President Barack Obama into a second term in office. This is man who has divisively and arrogantly given the middle finger to Catholic Church for over a year now in the matter of the HHS mandate. And we voted him back in.

Mea culpa.

If we fail ourselves, we fail the world. All of our recent efforts have not been in vain, but they have not brought about the result which we desired. We have finally stood up to fight, and knelt down to pray; but it has been a little too little, a little too late. We could not even carry half the vote of our own people. Until prayer and repentance take more root, we will not convert the minds and hearts of others. Until our catechesis is strengthened, and our seminaries are purified we will not be able to change our culture. Until our shepherds lead us once more in strength and holiness, we will not be able to lead the world in which we live to light. Until we become salt, we will season nothing. Yes, the American Catholic Church has failed America, but first it has failed American Catholics. Until we are healed of our own sickness, we will not be able to bring healing to the United States. Let us not be surprised to find that the world around us is in shambles, when we are in shambles, too. Let us, with great humility, recognize at last the lessons of history, accept our own responsibility, and begin the long, slow path to rebuilding. Let us not point the finger, but let us admit our own fault. To whom much has been given, much shall be required.

Mea maxima culpa.

So at the close of this election, I pray the we do not give up the fight or fall into despair. This is not the end. The time to start is now. We know now where we stand and what it is that we are up against. We may not have chosen this, but we know now the work we have to do. And it begins at home. It starts in our Church and in our families. The first dread passes now, and I find my mind not so much despairing as clarified and focused. Here we are, let us begin. May we be purified and purged. May we be lowly and lifted up. May we hunger for holiness and find our fill. May we become once more the pillar and ground of truth, the salt of the earth, a city set on a hill, and a kingdom of peace and righteousness to whom all the nations of the earth come streaming. May the Holy Spirit descend upon us as at Pentecost and give fire to our tongues.

"And I ask Blessed Mary, Ever-Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."
"And may Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and lead us to light everlasting."
In Nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen.

A Scriptural Tapestry for the Easter Triduum

          "Even if man by his nature is created for immortality, it is only now that the place exists in which his immortal soul can find its "space", its "bodiliness", in which immortality takes on its meaning as communion with God and with the whole of reconciled mankind...Christ's transformed body is also the place where men enter into communion with God and with one another and are thus able to live definitively in the fullness of indestructible life."

(Jesus of Nazareth Vol. 2 Pope Benedict XVI)

We are now in the midst of the great Easter Triduum, which consists of Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter. Each of these days seems to have its own particular theme, and each offers rich and unlimited possibilities for reflection. We chiefly remember Holy Thursday as the day of the Last Supper, the institution of the Holy Eucharist. Good Friday is the great memorial of our Lord's Passion, and Easter is the glorious feast of His victorious Resurrection. Yet at this time one particular theme stands out, a theme that runs through all three of these days and unites them like a golden thread. That theme is our Lord's Sacred Body. We find it first offered to the disciples at the Paschal banquet of Holy Thursday. It is then offered on the Cross in the bloody sacrifice of Good Friday. Finally, it is resurrected early Easter morning, becoming Church, Temple, and our Dwelling Place. With this theme in mind, I would like to offer the following series of Scriptures, drawn from both Old and New Testament writings, for your Easter reflection.

"Then the man said, 'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.'" (Gen. 2:23)

"And King David sent this message...'Say to the elders of Judah...You are my kinsmen, you are my bone and my flesh; why then should you be the last to bring back the king?'...And he swayed the heart of all Judah as one man...." (II Sam. 19:23)

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him..." (Gen. 14:18-19)

"The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest for ever according to the order of Melchizedek.'" (Ps. 110:4)

"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And he took a chalice, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, 'Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.'" (Matt. 26:26-28)

"Jesus answered them, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' The Jews then said, 'It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?' But he spoke of the temple of his body." ( Jn. 2:19-21)

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve." (I Cor. 15:3-5)

"Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men, but in God's sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (I Pet. 2:4-5)

"Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? If any one destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and that temple you are." (I Cor. 3:16-17)

"And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb." (Rev. 21:22)

"See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Lk. 24:39)

"For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church...." (Eph. 5:29-32)

"I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the wold is my flesh." (Jn. 6:51)

"The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come.'" (Rev. 22:17)

Mary Moe

I would like to turn your attention to a news article that may not be receiving much attention in the mainstream media. This story is presently unfolding in the state of Massachusetts and it has to do with a lady of 32 years of age, whose is being called simply "Mary Moe".

Mary Moe has some problems. She is schizophrenic. She is also bi-polar. According to the Powers-That-Be she is apparently unfit to be a mother. And worst of all, she is pregnant.

Now, I mentioned that this lady is mentally ill. But she hasn't always been as badly off as she is now. You see, some years ago she was expecting a little baby. She decided to abort this child. And it was following this act that Mary broke down completely, sending her into her present state. But that's alright. She simply exercised her freedom of choice, that freedom which the Supreme Court holds in such high esteem. Who could have foreseen the result? Of course, she could have kept the child, but no doubt her illness was already in existence then. I suppose it's all her fault, really. If she had dutifully practiced safer sex she would have never been faced with the awful choice of either being an unfit mother or of having a breakdown. I suppose that a troubled mother finding healing and hope through the raising of the child of her womb isn't really a thought that should cause us to lose any sleep at night.

But let us continue to the present. This poor woman has done the unthinkable, and in her worsened condition has become pregnant again. And this, my friends, is intolerable. This is heinous. This woman is the sort of person that eugenicist Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) called "human weeds". The sort of person she considered to be a burden to society, and of whom she once famously said that they should never have been born at all. And this person, these persons, are breeding....

So the gods of this world, the Ones-Who-Know-Better-Than-Us, have come to the rescue. The Massachusetts State Department of Health has entered the scene with an impeccable plan. Since the mother had a breakdown after her first abortion, and since she has become pregnant again, well...of course... the obvious solution: she must also abort this child! Yes, the MDH is trying to force Mary Moe to kill her child. And this is also alright, because Mary Moe abused her contraceptive freedom of choice, and is presently unfit to be allowed freedom of choice, so the choice will be made for her this time.

Now let me tell you a little bit more about Mary Moe. Mary actually has a son. And this son was born after her first abortion. Mary's parents have custody of child. Perhaps they could also take custody of this child? Perhaps there is no need for a convenient abortion? Or perhaps this will be too much of a burden on Mom and Dad (and I suppose that there is no one else who might possibly adopt or be given custody of this child)? Well, as it happens, Mary Moe's parents have been declared as Mary's legal guardians, in order to force her to have the abortion. This is their idea as well.

There is a little more. A Family Court Judge has also ordered a forced sterilization of Mary Moe. Which is perfectly understandable. If the poor, unfit woman can't make the right choices, we need to at least make certain that she is sterile, and we won't have to deal with all this unpleasantness next time. Also an expert has declared upon examining Mary that if she were in her right mind she would want to keep the child. Which doesn't matter at all, because she isn't, and that's really all there is to it.

Finally, here is the most touching part of all of this. DMH Commissioner Barbara Leadholm said, "The Department conveyed the request of health-care providers and the parents' wishes in order to ensure the safety of a patient with severe mental illness." [Emphasis added.] Isn't it reassuring to know they care so much?

When I read all this I was torn between anger and pity, fury and tears. Who knows what this woman has endured? Who know what healing, what redemption might have come from this childbirth, for the mother and for our modern culture rushing along in its hand basket? And oh, dear God, what even greater overthrow of mind may follow another abortion? My heart is bleeding for this woman, who is being forced against her will to destroy the "flesh of her flesh" by the Ones-Who-Know-Better, by the supercilious, sanctimonious powers of false justice and false charity as they sit on their thrones of damnation. If the One above them all will call into account the idle words we have dropped, what will be the reckoning for such evil as this, in this world and the one to come?

We must pray. Pray for the souls of the parents, judges, and all of those who are trying to decide against freedom and life. Pray for the child. Pray for Mary Moe.

An appellate court has presently suspended both the abortion and the sterilization orders. But this is not over. Pray while there is still time. Pray that our courts will remember true Justice and true Charity. Pray while there is still light. Work while it is still day.

Kyrie Eleison!
Christe Eleison!
Kyrie Eleison!

Sloganeering and the Bondage of the Mind

Information, once obtained only with great effort, is now regularly force-fed to us from every source. From radio, television, internet, i-phones, magazines, and newspapers; at home, at work, shopping, jogging, dining out- we find ourselves inundated by a virtual deluge of information. The exponential increase in the amount of received information is matched by an exponential decrease in available time for reflection and serious research, and by ever shorter attention spans, leaving the modern mind at the mercy of unscrupulous sloganeers, advertisers, and the masters of headlines. The sound-byte has become our source of truth.

There are two principal negative by-products of this current sad state of affairs which are detrimental to our ability to ascertain the truth.

The first is that modern man's actions are determined ever more by emotion and  mood, and less by intellect and reflection; this results not so much in actions, as in knee-jerk reactions. Consider the present state of advertisement. Few of us have either the time or the desire to research the quality of the products which we see advertised, or to compare large numbers of competitor's prices; thus the advertiser must rely upon emotion, mood, and attention-grabbing phrases, graphics, and audio clips to sell his product. The value of a new exercise bike is of far less importance than the sex appeal of the model advertising it. The taste of the latest flavored vodka is insignificant compared with the social status of those shown drinking it in the commercial. Thus the success of advertising is really dependent on the quality of the ad rather than on the quality of the product.

The second negative by-product is the devaluing of words. The ever-increasing tendency to use words to convey emotion or mood, instead of valid information, inevitably leads to a loss of meaning and to the destruction of language. (And be warned, the destruction of language leads inevitably to the destruction of thought....) The politicians, thinkers, and world leaders of our times have apparently taken a cue from Hollywood and advertisers, and have also become past masters of slogans and rhetoric. Their illegitimate use of certain words and catch-phrases amounts to little more than language abuse. The true definitions of crucial words are obscured, shrouded in vagueness, and twisted to conform to the intentions of those using them. Worse yet, the same words are now being used by such abusers as were used by thinkers, writers, and politicians of decades or centuries ago with almost entirely different meanings. Thus, our hearts leap up and our emotions are stirred (this is the whole idea, of course) when we hear the inspiring words of yesteryear's noble ideals, little realizing that the words and ourselves are being steadily robbed of meaning.

While words can convey a variety of emotions to us, one of the principal emotions underlying this present atmosphere of propaganda is snobbery. Freedom of choice, tolerance, and sensitivity (to use but a few examples) are all perfectly noble words that are frequently used to cover the most ignoble actions and programs. Yet their value in terms of snob appeal is immense. Those who buy into such catch-phrases are made to feel themselves as decent, broadminded, liberal persons. Those who oppose them can be easily shown to be little better than close-minded, boorish, prejudiced jerks. But perhaps it is time for us to shrug off the ignominy and insults, and carefully consider the actual meanings, intentions, and philosophies behind these words and phrases.

What is the meaning of freedom and what is its value and purpose? What relationship does this actually have to "freedom of choice"? How are we to understand the noble principles of duty, honor, and patriotism? What is their relation to dehumanizing methods of military training, unjust wars, and illicit means of interrogation? How do we define equality, and what is the scope and limits of natural human rights? What is the bearing of these concepts on adoption and the institution of marriage? What about separation of church and state? Democracy, liberal, conservative, liberty? Fulfillment, self-expression, lifestyle, personal choice, love?

If we hope to be a people of truth and justice; if we desire to help our neighbors, country, and world; or if we simply long to think clearly, it is imperative that we seek to penetrate the meanings and intentions of the words, ideals and philosophies regularly presented to us. We must shake off the subjective emotionalism of headlines, catch-phrases, and slogans. We must strive to free ourselves of the effects of propaganda, and learn to think on our own two feet again. We have allowed for far too long politicians, journalists, educators, lobbyists, and the heads of government boards to think for us. Let us take back our language and our intellects and pursue the truth. Only then will we know the true meaning of freedom, for it is the truth that sets us free.