Next Generation Christian Kingdom Ch. 04

"When it comes to understanding the words of people who live in different worlds, the one that is having the biggest impact in our nation right now, is the two different worlds of the liberals and the conservatives. Liberals are at a particular disadvantage to understanding conservatives, than conservatives are in understanding liberals, and there are two key reasons for this. First of all, there are no former conservatives among the ranks of liberals. Absolutely none. So they have no one in their lives that can adequately offer the necessary feedback required for proper communication.

"On the other hand, most conservatives are former liberals. They just grew up and realized that liberalism equals socialism before they bought into the fantasy of socialism as a functional process. So as a conservative, you either have lived in the world of the liberal, or you know someone who has. This gives conservatives a large advantage in understand the other side of this intellectual conflict,"

Alyson Frazier raised her hand at this point. "Yes, Ally?"

"Mistress Jennifer, I find that to be a rather bold statement. People only convert from liberal to conservative, not the other way. How can that be true?"

"The reasons why conversions are only one way are directly related to the real differences between them, and I am not ready to get into that right now," responded Lady Jennifer. After thinking for a few moments she said, "Now, my husband once ran across someone who claimed to be a former conservative, but now was a liberal. When Jacob pushed this guy to tell him how this could have taken place, he told him that he always voted as his father told him, which was Republican, until he finally went away to college (at age 30) and found 'himself.' Someone who just does what they are told could never be a conservative. This was not a conversion from a conservative to a liberal; this was a conversion from a putz to a yutz."

"Getting back to the topic at hand, the other disadvantage liberals have is the heavily liberal-biased media that we all experience. Even when liberals hear the words of conservatives from their preferred media source, these words are framed in a liberal context to send a liberal message.

"Take the issue of gay marriage. I do not know anyone I have met who is against gay marriage because of religious reasons. I know there are people who do, but they don't represent the majority of people against gay marriage. Yet the mainstream media are always showing these people as if they are the ones that represent the opposition just so that they can label all people who oppose gay marriage as nothing but religious bigots.

"On the rare occasion when we are given an opportunity to respond to this by stating that gay marriage will destroy marriage as an institution that benefits our society, this gets framed in the media as if we believe gay marriage threatens our marriages personally, which of course only makes us look like a bunch of idiots. I think that I can state quite confidently that there is not a single person against gay marriage who believes their own marriage is threatened by it, but that is not the impression you would get in the mainstream media.

"Because of these constant and never ending distortions, people on the left can claim they know why those on the right are against gay marriage, but the reality is they don't. Everyone I know, including me, is against gay marriage because it is a lie. The gender of the people involved in a marriage is not irrelevant. I for one am not going to drink the Kool-Aid of the liberal agenda and say our children do not need a mother and a father in their lives.

"Yet the point of this discussion is not to debate the merits of gay marriage. This is far too important of a subject to cover only lightly. We'll have an entire lesson focused solely on this subject another day, because it leads into why marriage is so important. Today we are talking about the dishonesty of the mainstream media in presenting the conservative message. It only shows the conservative words that they want to present in order to deliver a liberal message. In this case, they want to send the message that those against gay marriage are either religious bigots or paranoid fools. Liberals in fact do not want an honest debate on the issue of gay marriage, and they construct a delusional world about their opposition in order to avoid it."

"So liberals really are at a disadvantage if they want to know what is on the minds of those they oppose. Conservatives on the other hand are buried deep in the liberal media, so they have no problems what so ever in finding the messages of those they oppose. They have to go out of their way to find true conservative messages, but they at least know where to go.

"The take away point of this part of the topic is that if you actually want to understand what the other side has to say, then you can't take for granted that your are getting their message. You may only be getting their words formed and framed to deliver some other message.

"If you are not interested in really understanding the messages of those your disagree with, that's fine, just don't call yourself enlightened. Enlightenment is not about knowing what you want to know, it's about knowing what you should know.

"Any liberal who does not believe he should know about those he considers to be the biggest threat to his life and liberty -- bigger than even the jihadists -- is not only unenlightened, he is also a moron."

Lady Jennifer paused again. "How are we doing so far? Still hanging in there?" She was getting some nods of encouragement. "Good.

"When I started this line about context, I said there are two serious problems associated wit it. We covered the first one, which is believing that you understand the words of people who live in different worlds, and the disadvantage liberals have in this case. The other problem is far more insidious.

"Just as the meaning of words cannot be fully understood unless the context they are being used is known, the flips side can also be true. That is, sometimes words come with a context already associated with them. This already established context makes them susceptible to something we call context hijacking.

"In context hijacking you take the context of one word in order to replace the context of another. A couple of benign examples that are easy to understand are the evolution of stewardess to flight attendant, and secretary to administrative assistant. In both of these cases, neither job actually changed, just the names.

"The reason for the name change is that negative connotations got associated with the original terms, and rather than educating the populace about the real importance of these positions, the members of these positions decided to call themselves something else to give people a more positive idea of what they do.

"Like I said, these examples are benign. The important thing to take note at this time is that they did not do this for those that belonged to their group. They did this for those outside of it, and more important to note is that they did this because they did not want to bother with educating those outside of their group of the importance of their work.

"When I began this lesson on what are words for, I mentioned that liberalism was once an enlightened form of thought. It actually was, but that hasn't been true since the beginning of the twentieth century. At the time, liberalism was about focusing on the individual and liberating him to be the best that he can be.

"Then something happened, and I'll let the words of Norman Thomas explain it. He said these words in 1927, and then went on to be the six-time nominee of the Socialist Party for the president of the United States. He said, 'The American people would never vote for socialism...but under the name of liberalism, the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.'

"I'm still not able to define enlightenment for you, but I can assure you socialism is one of the many antithesis to it. Socialism is about sacrificing the individual for the common good, yet there cannot be a common good when the individual is sacrificed. When socialists hijacked the context of liberalism, liberalism died as an enlightened form of thought.

"I'm sure the socialists at the time thought that they were enlightened, and they wanted to use liberalism because they believed that socialism got its name unfairly associated with negative things. Yet just as the names flight attendant and administrative assistant are used by people who don't want to educate those outside of their group, the same can be said of liberals. They do not want to educate people outside of their group either; specifically that they are socialist.

"The big question to ponder here is, who are the ones that are outside of their group that they don't want to hear that they are socialists. They are not doing it for conservatives. Most conservatives are those that left liberalism once they understood it to be socialism, so the context hijacking is not going to work on them.

"This goes to a key difference between conservatives and liberals that we'll get into more on another day. Liberals are actually made up of two distinct groups. There are the elites, and there are the tools -- although a more accurate label is the socialist and their useful idiots.

"Whether you are a tool or an elite depends upon your motivation in defending liberalism from the charge that it is nothing more than socialism. If you actually believe that the charge is false, then you are a tool. If on the other hand you believe that most people will never understand that socialism is the best thing for them, then you are an elite. If you actually respected people enough to try to convince them that socialism is the right thing, then you are a socialist, and you would have no need for liberalism.

"Conservatism on the other hand has no need for context hijacking. Everyone in it is expected to understand it. The closest example of context hijacking that I have seen from a conservative is when the current President Bush ran as a 'compassionate' conservative. This absolutely infuriated me, because this implied that conservatism is normally not compassionate.

"Yet the exact opposite is true. If you want to be compassionate you must start with conservative principles. Compassion is not something you demand someone else to do for you -- like the government. Compassion is something you must do your self. George Bush set the conservative agenda way back by that campaign. Like I said, conservative politicians are always our worst enemy.

"Any questions so far?" Lady Jennifer asked. Sandra Nelson and Alyson Frazier raised their hands. "Yes Sandra?"

"Mistress Jennifer, since you are saying that liberalism is not enlightened, are you implying that conservatism is?" Sandra asked.

"Oh, heavens no!" exclaimed Lady Jennifer. "I think it's pretty safe to say that most conservatives are not enlightened -- hence the politicians that claim to be conservative. Yet conservatism is a good place to start towards enlightenment. Most conservatives know they are going in the right direction, but they don't really understand why."

Then looking at Alyson, "Your question, Ally."

"Mistress Jennifer, I just can't see calling myself a conservative. Are there any other options?"

"The problem you are having is that you see conservatism as a group identity, not as a form of thought," replied Lady Jennifer. Then after thinking a few moments she said, "This reminds me of a scene in a movie about Gandhi. A reporter asked him that since he was always quoting Christ, why wasn't he a Christian? Then Gandhi replied, 'because of Christians.'

"So his rejection of Christianity was because of the actions of Christians, not because of Christ himself. This is a mistake made by many people. They focus on the negative in a group to the detriment of themselves, instead of finding the positive, which can build their lives to something they could ever imagine.

"A political example of this is a lesbian talk radio host called Tammy Bruce. She was once the president of the Los Angeles branch of the National Organization of Women. Once she finally understood what liberalism really was, she was faced with the same predicament you are. Her solution was to call herself a Classical Liberal in order to bring back the original meaning of the word. Personally, I think she is just fooling herself.

"What she does not understand is that if conservatism fails in this country, then everything she is fighting for will fail also. Her refusal to become a conservative, and shape the conservative movement into something she finds more acceptable to her, is really nothing more than her formal liberal thinking creeping out that it is more important to make a statement than it is to be effective.

"The absolute worst examples of this are the libertarians. Or as another talk show host calls them, the 'losertarians,' because that is what they are. These people are no different than liberals in their need to make a statement, rather than actually accomplishing anything in life. The only impact they have had, is making sure liberals have won political races that conservatives could have taken. I'll have a lot more to say on the masturbatory acts of libertarians on another day.

"Getting back to Gandhi; my mind reels with the possibilities for the future of Christianity if Gandhi had decided to become a Christian. As a pure theological exercise, it's quite fascinating. Not only would Christianity as a whole had benefited, but so would have he."

Then back to Alyson, "Ally, you have the same sort of choice to make. Are you going to accept how conservatism is defined for you, and run from it, or are you going to make it into what you believe it should be? Tammy Bruce and all of those 'losertarians' have decided that it is best for conservatism as they see it to fail, as if this is going to benefit them in some way; as if this is not going to devastate everything they claim to be working for.

"So are you going to work in a way that benefits your life, or are you more concerned with not associating yourself with those you only somewhat disagree with?

"Any more questions?" Alyson's hand came back up. "You have more Ally? Go ahead."

"Mistress Jennifer, I'm finding this all hard to take in. I know liberals have socialistic tendencies, but to call them all socialist, and to claim they are intentionally lying about it seems a bit much. How can you be so sure?"

"It's not all that hard Ally." Lady Jennifer began. "You should take a look at a recent Democrat Presidential debate. In it, a very sincere tool asked Senator Clinton to define liberalism, and asked how as president she would defend it. I'm not surprised he asked that question; in fact, I don't know why more don't.

"As an elite, Ms. Clinton couldn't very well say it's socialism, so she said what any self-respecting liberal elite would say in that position. She denied being a liberal, and in fact called herself progressive. Of course she didn't define progressive either. That's because there isn't a damn bit of difference between the two, so what could she say?

"You see, liberalism was never meant to be defined. The word is being used because of its context; because of what people think when they hear it. Many liberals have now started calling themselves progressives because the liberal context has lost its sheen... and their useful idiots have started asking questions.

"Any more?" she said as she looked around the room. None seemed to be coming, so she proceeded. "It is now time for the last topic of the day, which are words that are factually correct, but are none the less deceptions. In other words, what you say when you use them may be true, but don't for a second believe that you are talking about something that is real.

"What I just said sounds strange, huh?

"The main point I want to tell you, I can't just tell you up front. If I did, you would not get it. I have to work my way down to it, starting off with something that should be fairly simple for you to grasp, then continuing down a couple more levels of understanding. After the final level I should then be able to tell you what I need to tell you.

"These three levels are examples of what we call the non-existent opposites. This is where we have something that definitely does exist, so naturally we assume its opposite does also, yet in fact, it doesn't.

"Up first, level number one... There is no such thing as darkness. Dark does not exist. Light does exist. When you turn on a light bulb, photons come out. Yet conversely, when you turn off the bulb, darkness does not come out.

"Darkness is nothing more than a communication tool. It was created so that instead of saying 'there is insufficient light in the room to see,' we can say instead 'the room is dark.'

"Are you all OK so far? That was the easy one. The important thing to note is that you can say something that is factually correct, such as a room being dark, but that doesn't mean the thing you said is real.

"Ready for level two? It's a little harder." The girls seemed eager to continue, so she did.

"Level two... There is no such thing as cold; there is only varying degrees of heat. The word cold was created so that instead of saying 'there is insufficient heat in a room to be comfortable,' we can now say 'the room is cold.'

"This level is a bit more difficult to grasp. Particularly when we can open a door in a warm room to the outside, and feel the cold air rush in. It makes cold appear to be more real than dark, but it isn't. One way to show that it doesn't exist is by looking at how a refrigerator works.

"Many people believe that refrigerators work by creating cold inside of it. Worse yet, they believe that if you leave the door open it will cool off the kitchen, yet the exact opposite is true. Refrigerators are nothing more than heat pumps. They transfer heat, which does exist, from the inside of it to the outside, and they generate heat in doing so. Leaving a refrigerator door open will, in fact, heat up the kitchen.

"So to wrap up both levels up so far, dark does not exist, but light does. Cold does not exist, but heat does. You can use dark and cold in a sentence and be factually correct, but that does not make them real.

"The final level is the most difficult to grasp, and some of you really won't get exactly what I am talking about. I have to cover it anyway, so that you will at least understand the final point I want to make, even if I haven't convinced you that it is true.

"Level three... There is no 'them'; there is only 'us'. 'Us' and 'them' are words used to help us understand the people we encounter. The process of understanding almost anything is through categorization. We group like things together in our minds in order to draw relationships and dissimilarities. The important thing that you must understand is that this categorization occurs in our mind and is not a reality.

"As you will learn as your enlightenment grows, the things that work for you are real, and the things that work against you are illusion. The concept of 'us' works in our favor; the concept of 'them' works against us.

"To help you understand this, consider the thoughts that run through your head when someone does something wrong. When one of 'us' does something wrong we think in terms of forgiveness and redemption. When one of 'them' does something wrong we think in terms of retribution and revenge. Which of these actions do you suppose is something that builds, and which do you suppose is something that destroys?

"The worst part of believing in the existence of 'them' is how it allows us to be controlled by people who engage in what's called us-and-them politics. They seek to gain power by making a 'them' out of people who should be part of 'us.'