10 Great Libertarian Movies – Dystopian Edition

Libertarians with their love of natural rights tend to be extremely sensitive to the horrors evoked in dystopian works of art. One would presume that Statists find totalitarian dystopian art to be akin to fairytales that end “happily ever after,” but that is another story entirely. The following are ten great dystopian films that all Libertarians should see. Some end triumphantly for the cause of liberty and some … not so much.  

1. V for Vendetta

Movies are notorious for being inferior to their source material. However, James McTeigue’s film adaptation of Alan Moore’s 1980s graphic novel V for Vendetta surpasses the greatness of its source material by contemporizing the graphic novel’s fascistic themes into neoconservative ones. The film skillfully depicts the totalitarian dangers of the modern surveillance state and the libertarian Lockean theme of opposing a state that has lost its right to rule by oppressing the people it is meant to serve.

Unlike the Neoconservative Batman, V embodies a libertarian hero who is unafraid to stand up to the totalitarian regime. Director James McTeigue and producers the Wachowskis (of The Matrix fame) were brave to adapt a film that might be considered subversive in the Post-911 world where the state is worshipped as the only means of protection against terrorism and other (often) phantom threats.

V’s televised speech is among the most moving of movie scenes for any liberty lover. Strong performances by Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, and John Hurt along with masterful direction and cinematography make V for Vendetta one of the greatest graphic novel adaptations. Unlike too many libertarian themed films, this one actually triumphed at the box office. 

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

2. Serenity

Many avowed progressives are libertarians even if they do not realize it. The brilliant Joss Whedon is a prime example of this. The auteur behind “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Serenity” has often presented libertarian themes whether intentionally or not. From Buffy opposing the Initiative – a neoconservative military group that sought to indefinitely detain demons and use them to create weapons – in season four of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” to Angel and his gang fighting the good fight against demonic legal firm Wolfram and Hart – representative of the corporatist powers that hold the true reins of power in the world – Whedon has always seemed like a libertarian waiting to happen. His deep mistrust of the government makes statism a poor fit for him.

Serenity – the theatrical sequel to short-lived television sci fi cult classic “Firefly” – is an old fashioned “space western.” The film depicts the roguish Captain Mal Reynolds and his band of petty criminals who find a noble cause to pursue when they decide to protect River Tam – a young woman with a secret that could bring down the totalitarian Alliance government. Like the United States government which employs fluoride in the drinking water and psychiatric drugs to control the people, the Alliance has tested a chemical compound to suppress aggression in human beings. With disastrous results.

As with any Whedon production, Serenity mixes philosophical ideas with humor and engrossing action sequences. Whedon’s most recent big budget Avengers adaptation made more in its first few hours of release than Serenity made in its entire theatrical run. Pity. Serenity is one shiny masterpiece.

3. Equilibrium

Take Fahrenheit 451, mix in 1984, and then sprinkle in some kick ass action sequences with fight scenes that make those in The Matrix seem trite, and you have Equilibrium. The film is far superior to most sci fi action films, yet somehow managed to make just over $5 million at the domestic box office. And yet that sci fi crapfest with Jar Jar Binks made over $1 trillion?

In the futuristic city-state of Libria, the government has decided that the devastating Third World War was caused by human emotion. In order to “protect” the people, the government mandates that all people must take the emotion suppressing drug Prozium – basically Prozac but not Prozac as the film’s producers would hardly have enough money to defend against a lawsuit from the corporatist leviathan Eli Lilly and Company. In addition to Prozium, the government of Libria censors and destroys any art or other materials that might potentially inspire emotions. Christian Bale plays John Preston, a government agent who is part of a martial arts trained group that enforces the laws against “sense offenders.” Unlike in his role as Batman, Bale does not need to wear a silly latex fetish costume with a cowl or speak in a bizarre voice. Preston is a widower with two young children. His wife had been executed as a “sense offender.” When Preston forgets to take his daily dose of Prozium, he begins to experience emotions. Preston aids the Resistance against the government and begins a path to redemption that is surprisingly moving for an action film that features “gun fu” and a katana fight scene.

4. Fight Club

Fight Club is another film whose greatness outshines its source material. And even Chuck Palahniuk – the author of the novel on which the film is based – agrees. A box office failure, Fight Club has steadily gained a large group of admirers and has worked its way into the all time top 10 of user rated movies on the Internet Movie Database. The script by Jim Uhls, the acting by Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter and every single supporting player, David Fincher’s direction, and the score by the Dust Brothers are all – a in a word – perfect. The combined efforts of these great artists produce a different kind of dystopia – a dystopia that IS our present world rather than some fanciful futuristic society.  

Fight Club is subversive, violent, fascistic, anarchistic, Freudian, and postmodern, but at its heart it is a simple love story. However, its soul is libertarian. The Narrator overcomes his conditioned corporatist consumerism, tames his violent fascistic and collectivist inner impulses, becomes a self-actualized and enlightened individualist, brings down the banking system, and gets the girl. Words cannot do the film justice. So, all that can be said is that if you have not seen Fight Club, see it NOW. IF you have seen it, watch it again. And again. And again.

5. 1984

Michael Radford’s adaptation of Orwell’s classic dystopian novel creates a viscerally bleak depiction of a totalitarian England that is at once nostalgic and futuristic yet still contemporary. The film – as well as the novel – is a primer on totalitarian collectivist techniques which governments use to control their people. It sets the mood of despair and paranoia that police states create for their oppressed citizens.

John Hurt – who would later play the villainous Chancellor Sutler in V for Vendetta – skillfully portrays the bland minor government bureaucrat Winston Smith. The wonderful Richard Burton gives his last great performance as O’Brien – and makes up for the campy alcohol infused performance that he gave in the mindnumbingly strange but nonetheless compelling Exorcist2: The Heretic.

Radford presents hallmarks of Orwell’s novel – Newspeak, telescreens, continuous warfare, and the “Two Minutes Hate” – in an evocative manner and creates just the right tone. The film slowly immerses the viewer into the bleak world of ever-present totalitarianism. Burton’s revelation of the motives of the Party is chilling, and the final scenes are as haunting as the original prose of Orwell. 

6. Gattaca 

Andrew Niccol’s 1997 sci fi masterpiece starring Ethan Hawke, Jude Law, and Uma Thurman presents a more gentle form of totalitarianism. Gattaca is a world where eugenics and genetic engineering have produced two distinct classes of human beings – “valids” who are engineered to be intellectually and physically superior and “invalids” who are naturally conceived human beings.  Although genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, “invalids” are typically relegated to menial jobs. 

Hawke plays Vincent Anton Freeman (obvious name symbolism much?), a bright an ambitious “invalid” who dreams about becoming an astronaut. Due to informal genetic discrimination, Vincent must use the DNA samples of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a paralyzed “valid.”

Part underdog story, part dystopian fantasy, and part murder mystery, Gattaca raises complex and disturbing philosophical issues concerning eugenics and Transhumanism. Is the world portrayed in this film the “brave new world” where we are headed? If so, will a new biological social divide be created and lead to even more unrest in society?  

7. Minority Report 

The 2002 Steven Spielberg directed Tom Cruise blockbuster vehicle Minority Report – based on a short story by the inimitable Philip K. Dick – presents a dystopian society that is perhaps a more frightening and realistic possibility for the future than even 1984. Truth is often stranger – and scarier – than fiction and many of the sci fi technologies presented in this film are seemingly only a short time away from being developed by DARPA and unleashed on the American public.

Tom Cruise stars as Commander John Anderton, police commander of Washington D.C.’s controversial new “PreCrime” Force. Using genetic mutant “precogs” who can predict murders before they occur, Anderton and his colleagues arrest potential murderers before they can commit their crimes. Those guilty of “PreCrime” are placed without due process into a perpetual state of suspended animation where they experience bliss. Due to the success of the program, D.C. – which is now among the “murder capitals of the nation” – has been murder free for six years. When the “precogs” predict that Anderton will murder a man that he has never met within 36 hours, he must go on the run in order to figure out who has framed him and why it was done.

Minority Report represents some of the best work of Spielberg’s illustrious career. Its stunning presentation of futurist technology and arresting action sequences provide just the right amount of action flick “sugar” to make the philosophical “medicine” of the film go down smoothly. The horrors of “benevolent” totalitarianism are put on display and the philosophical issue of free will versus determinism is explored along with the ethics of “punishing” those who have not committed a crime but inevitably will.

If the future does make such technologies possible, should they be used? Are some technologies so pernicious that they should not even be employed for good reasons where such technology will provide great utilitarian benefits for society as a whole?

8. A Scanner Darkly 

Austin, Texas native Richard Linklater has made some of the quirkiest and most eclectic films in recent years – including Waking Life, Dazed and Confused, and Before Sunset. In his adaptation of Philip K. Dick’s novel of the same name, Linklater creates a surreal and paranoid world where covert government agents surveil citizens in order to fight the “War on Drugs.” In other words, it is like our world, only even more paranoid. Linklater employs the creative technique of using rotoscope animation over digitally filmed live action scenes to produce a look that is so distinctive that one wonders why more directors do not use it. Keanu “Whoa” Reeves stars as Bob Arctor, a government agent assigned to find the source of a new drug called Substance D. Robert Downey, Jr. and Woody Harrelson give wonderful comedic performances as Arctor’s two perpetually drugged friends. Winona Ryder also gives a surprisingly nuanced performance as Arctor’s potential love interest – a drug dealer who may be able to lead him to the source of Substance D.

The themes of a drugged out populace, omnipresent government surveillance, and ruthlessly pragmatic police procedures are effectively presented by Linklater. The rotoscope is a pleasure to behold and gives the film a surreal yet also somehow ultra-realistic feel. As an added bonus, talk show host Alex Jones gives an amusing cameo appearance as himself.  Of course, Jones employs his bullhorn.    

9. Brazil

 

What if someone read Orwell’s 1984 while tripping on acid and decided to make a high budget Kubrickesque absurdist comedy loosely based upon it? Monty Python alumnus and gonzo director Terry Gilliam did just that when he made Brazil in 1985.  While Orwell presented the bleak horrors of totalitarian bureaucracy, Gilliam presents the absurd humor of it.

Jonathan Pryce plays Sam Lowry, a low-level milquetoast government official whose clerical error leads to the arrest, torture, and killing of an innocent man with a name similar to that of a wanted terrorist. When a female friend of the deceased man appears on a government list as a person of interest and friend of a terrorist, Lowry attempts to make amends and fix the situation in order to save her life. Wackiness ensues.

Gilliam’s distinct direction is on display as always. Creative set designs and breathtaking cinematography give Brazil a unique and sometimes surreal look. Strong comedic performances by Robert Deniro, Bob Hoskins, and “Soap” and “Who’s the Boss” alumnus Katherine Helmond make Brazil more amusing than any dystopian film about a totalitarian regime has the right to be. If you think that 1984 was compelling but just needed a bit of black comedy, then Brazil is the film for you.  

10. The Trial

Orson Welles adapted Franz Kafka’s chilling novel The Trial in 1962. Any film directed by Welles – the director of Citizen Kane – is worth viewing, but The Trial is particularly frightening. Anthony Perkins – of Psycho fame – portrays Josef K, a man who awakes to find that he is being placed under arrest. He is not informed of the charges, and he is also not taken into custody. Josef K. struggles in vain to learn the nature of the crime of which he is accused and only succeeds in learning that he has been condemned to death.

Welles succeeds in presenting a stark black and white surreal canvas on which to paint Kafka’s bleak existentialist themes of totalitarianism, capricious justice, and the learned helplessness of human beings under despotic regimes. Welles creates a waking nightmare from which we – like Josef K. – cannot escape, employing many inventive directorial techniques as he did in Citizen Kane. Perkins shows great range in the lead role and quickly dispels any comparisons to Norman Bates. He is an “everyman” yet there is something not quite right about him. In a sense one can project any real or imagined crime onto him, yet at the same time there is no doubt that he is guilty of no crime. Through him the audience feels both frustration at the totalitarian justice system of this imaginary world yet also an uneasy feeling of resignation.

The Trial is in the public domain, and may be viewed in its entirety at the link below.  

The Trial

The National Debt Shell Game

The looming “fiscal cliff,” “fiscal curve,” or whatever you want to call it is a red herring. In effect, all that it really does is provides filler for 24 hour news channels so that they do not have to bother reporting on real news. There is simply no way to make a few spending cuts here or there or to raise taxes in this tax bracket or that tax bracket in order to solve the debt crisis. Even if all discretionary spending – military spending and all spending other than mandatory spending – were cut completely, the United States would not balance the budget based upon the tax revenues that it currently receives. Furthermore, the amount of tax increases necessary to cover mandatory spending – Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Unemployment, debt interest, tax credits, and student loans – would likely cripple an already hobbled economy and require even further increases in mandatory spending to cover even more needy Americans that would result.

The federal government is going to be forced to make tough choices – something that is has proven to be ineffective in doing. The entitlement system is going to have be radically overhauled. Social Security may have to be altered with means tests, higher retirement ages, and smaller payments or even eventually privatized like in Chile. Other “social safety net” programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, Unemployment, etc. – which are patently unconstitutional – may have to be transferred entirely to the states in line with the Tenth Amendment. Only a leaner and more “Constitution-sized” government is one that Americans will ever be able to afford to fund.

However, this is not to say that military spending and all other discretionary spending should not be cut wherever possible. If responsibility for entitlement programs were to be returned to the states in a Constitutional fashion, American taxpayers will require savings in federal taxes in order to pay for inevitable increases in state taxes. In particular, the Military-Industrial Complex can no longer be a sacred cow. If the nation were to return to the noninterventionist foreign policy of the Founders, then defense spending could easily be reduced significantly. Ending the Drug War, getting rid of federal regulations that are often expensive to enforce, and completely eliminating all nonessential and unconstitutional executive branch agencies would also save money.  Corporatist social welfare (which costs nearly $100 billion per year) must also be eliminated as well as counterproductive blowback inducing foreign aid (over $50 billion per year).  

Perhaps most importantly, the Federal Reserve must be abolished. The federal government must regain its constitutional control of the currency in order to allow free market forces to grow the economy.  Unless and until American leaders in Congress and the White House get real, the whole debate on taxes/spending and the debt is just a charade.  

Another Scapegoat for Mass Shootings

 

The finger pointing blame game that occurs whenever there is a tragic mass shooting in the United States has begun again. Progressives point the finger at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at video game manufacturers. Video game manufacturers point the finger back at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at Hollywood. Hollywood points the finger back at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at Big Pharma and the psychiatric industry.  Big Pharma pints the finger back at gun rights advocates. Gun rights advocates point the finger at policies that do not make schools into militarized police states or the Wild West. School officials point the finger back at gun rights advocates.  

Now gun rights advocates are pointing the finger of blame at the news media. The news media, it is claimed, “glorifies” killers by making them “household names.” Disaffected and disturbed individuals go on a killing spree instead of simply committing suicide because they wish to achieve the fame in death that eluded them in life. 

Is this even true? First of all, are such killers really “household names?”  One of the most tragic school shootings in American history occurred on the campus of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. The murderous gunman climbed a tower on the university campus and opened fire with a Universal M1 Carbine rifle, killing 15 and wounding 32 others before being killed by police. What is this murderer’s name? It is no excuse that he perpetrated his murderous rampage nearly fifty years ago. Lee Harvey Oswald, Sirhan Sirhan, and Charles Manson committed their heinous crimes during this period, and they are well remembered. Rather than have you waste time Googling it, I will tell you that the murderer’s name is Charles Joseph Whitman. How about a more recent one? What is the name of the murderer who 32 and injured 17 on the campus of Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007? Give up? It was Seung-Hui Cho.

The point is that media coverage of these murderers do not really seem to make them into “household names.” Nevertheless, is it possible that the erroneous perception that they will become “household names” inspires these rampage mass shooters? There is no evidence that this inspired Charles Joseph Whitman. All indications are that a dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps, the divorce of his parents, and marital problems led to Whitman’s rampage. What about Seung-Hui Cho? Evidence indicates that he was suffering from severe anxiety disorder as well as major depression. In a note that he left behind, he channeled Holden Caulfield and criticized “rich kids,” “debauchery,” and “deceitful charlatans” and claimed that these “rich kids” were the ones who “caused him to do this.”  There is no indication that fame – or infamy – was on his mind. The Colombine killers – Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – cited bullying at school as their motivation.

Even if some rampage killer committed his crimes in order to achieve fame, what would critics of the news media have them do? Would these critics seek to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of the news media? Should the news media ignore such stories and simply continue reporting on hero dogs that save their owners’ lives and on common household items that may be dangerous? Should no mention be made of the killers? Should the audience be given no facts about the killers so that no theories may be formulated as to why the tragedy occurred?

The mainstream news media in the United States can be criticized for countless things. These outlets are largely corporatist mouthpieces owned by large corporations. These outlets often practice lazy and sloppy journalism. These outlets often go to insensitive extremes in order to get sensationalistic details. However, when television journalists attempt to actually do their jobs and inform the public about a tragic event, should they be stopped from doing it?

Until Americans and their politicians get real about the causes of gun violence in general and mass murder in particular, these tragedies will continue to occur. A simple scapegoat is always easier to find than a complex solution to a multi-faceted problem. Poverty, desensitization, a history of institutionalized racism, an inept mental health system, and violent and nihilistic feelings inspired by a ruthless government and the hopelessness it creates with misguided economic and social policies are just a few of the root causes of violence in the United States. Smarmy talking heads on the television news are no more to blame than video games, Hollywood, or the Second Amendment.

What If Speech Was Regulated Like Guns?

  

The pen is mightier than the sword. It is also mightier than the gun – whether it is a revolver, semiautomatic pistol, assault rifle, or machine gun. Words can move the world whether these words are delivered through speech, the printing press, or the internet.  

The speeches of Lenin inspired the birth of a movement that led to the deaths of nearly 100 million human beings. 

The speeches of Hitler inspired the birth of a movement that led to the deaths of 61 million human beings in World War II and to another 11 million human beings in his murderous programs of extermination. Countless others died by other fascistic leaders inspired by Hitler. 

 

There is not a single gun that could lead to so many fatalities. Not even a single weapon of mass destruction could kill so many human beings. Therefore, one could claim that speech is more dangerous than guns.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” -- The First Amendment

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” -- The Second Amendment

Notice the words – “no law” and “shall not be infringed.” These are absolutes. Of course, both free speech and the right to bear arms have limits. The Supreme Court has recognized several categories of speech that do not enjoy First Amendment protection. These categories include fighting words, obscenity, child pornography, imminent incitement of illegal activity, threats, solicitations or offers to engage in illegal activity, and libel. The Supreme Court has also recognized limits on the right to bear arms.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Given that both speech and guns may be limited by the government, and given that the pen is mightier than the sword (or gun), why is speech not regulated as guns are? What if words were regulated as guns are? What if speech were regulated as gun control advocates would like guns to be regulated?

 

Ban on “Machine Words” and “Assault Words”

Machine guns were effectively banned by Congress in the National Firearms Act of 1934. “Assault weapons” were banned by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – which lapsed in 2004 but may very well be renewed. These firearms are more powerful, and hence, more dangerous. Likewise, one could argue that some types of speech are more powerful, and hence, more dangerous. Current categories of prohibited speech do not have to do with the power of those words. These categories are based upon contexts. Therefore, new categories of speech not protected by the First Amendment would have to be created in order to be analogs of restrictions on machine guns and “assault weapons.” Impassioned speech by charismatic individuals – whether skilled orators like Martin Luther King, Jr. or skilled writers like Thomas Jefferson – would need to be banned. No written work has inspired more people than the Bible. Hence, that would need to be banned as well. The passionate words of such individuals inspire actions in the way that the words of bland and emotionless hacks do not. Therefore, in order to protect the children from the next Lenin or the next Hitler, powerful words – “machine words” and “assault words” must be banned.

Waiting Period and Background Check

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994 imposes a five-day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun and requires that local law enforcement agencies conduct background checks on purchases of handguns. Words are more dangerous than guns; therefore a similar five-day waiting period should be imposed on speech. If one wants to speak to other people, write a letter to be sent to another person, write a piece for publication, or send an e-mail, make a message board post, Tweet, or post on one’s FaceBook page, one should have to wait for five days and be subjected to a background check. The federal government should also create a database with information about all speakers and what they said. Former felons should not be allowed to speak at all. Anyone with a “mental health history” – which is to say anyone with a “disease” according to the learned “priests” of the psychiatric class – should not be allowed to speak at all.

 

Ban on the Right to Free Speech by Civilians

The Holy Grail of gun control is a total firearms ban similar to what is present in safe and enlightened nations like China and North Korea. Therefore, the Holy Grail of word control is a total ban on speech. At least a total ban on civilian speech. Words are so dangerous that only the state should be allowed any speech at all. Police, soldiers, and those who command them will still be allowed to speak. They will be able to tell civilians to “move it” as they march them into concentration camps. They will tell them “see you in Hell” when they shoot them or gas them with Zyklon B.

All or Nothing

The bottom line is that natural rights are natural rights. These inalienable rights come as a set and may not be “purchased separately.” The Constitution provides mechanisms to amend it. If one wishes to repeal the First or the Second Amendment, there are direct and constitutional ways for lovers of totalitarianism to do so. However, repealing those amendments does not make those rights disappear. The government does not grant rights. The Constitution does not grant rights. The Constitution merely summarizes indestructible rights that already exist in nature. Nevertheless, if we want to “protect the children,” perhaps we should ban words. Of course, nobody would want their children to live in a world where no civilian may speak. Perhaps parents believe that their children can live in a world with words but without guns. Alas, infringe the right of the people to bear arms and eventually you will have a nation where none may speak without fear of the government.  

Kick Piers Off the Pier?

CNN host Piers Morgan is a foppish pseudo-intellectual twit. There is no doubt about that. Morgan is the host of CNN’s highest rated show “Piers Morgan Tonight,” having replaced CNN mainstay Larry King in January of 2011. Morgan was a writer and editor with several British tabloids including The Sun, The News of the World, and Daily Mirror and has also been a judge on “Britain’s Got Talent” and “America’s Got Talent,” and the winner of Trump’s “Celebrity Apprentice” in 2008.

Despite being the host of CNN’s highest rated show, not that many Americans followed him very closely because ratings on a television network are a relative thing. Morgan’s show pulls in less than 1 million viewers a night on the average and finishes a distant third in the Nielsen ratings well behind Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News and Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC.

On December 21, a petition appeared on the White House’s website demanding that Piers Morgan be deported.

British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.

As of December 24, 2012, more than 48,000 people had signed this document. The policy of the White House is that if a petition receives 25,000 signatures within 30 days, the White House is obliged to respond.

Why do Americans want the federal government to give this tabloid journalist fop the heave ho? The furor began in the wake of comments that Morgan has made on his show and on Twitter following the tragic school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14. Morgan has consistently attacked the Second Amendment on his show, culminating in an embarrassing performance on December 19, 2012 when unable to engage in a rational debate with gun rights advocate Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, Morgan resorted to childish name calling. During this broadcast, Morgan called Pratt “an unbelievably stupid man,” an “idiot,” and “a dangerous man espousing dangerous nonsense.”  

Morgan continued his gun control crusade on Twitter, tweeting several suggestions for new gun control regulations that he would like to see enacted. These suggestions include a ban on “assault weapons,” more stringent background checks, a ban on guns for any felons or people with a “mental health history,” and a ban on guns for any person less than 25 years of age. In addition, Morgan suggested “a huge incentivized gun amnesty,” noting that he does not believe anyone needs more than one gun. 

The idea that Piers Morgan should be deported has been energetically expressed by Wall Street Journal writer James Taranto and by popular talk show host Alex Jones. Morgan had argued that he was protected by the First Amendment, but Taranto replied that Morgan’s opinion was protected but his presence in the United States was not, citing Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) – a case involving the denial of an immigration visa by the Attorney General to a Belgian Marxist journalist – in support of his opinion. 

Jones argues that Morgan should be deported because he is a foreign agent attempting to subvert the Constitution.

It’s one thing for an American citizen to ideologically assault and trash the Constitution, although odious such activity would be protected under the First Amendment, but Piers Morgan is a foreigner in a position of influence on prime time television. He is a foreign agent using his power to lobby for the constitutional rights of American citizens to be overturned. If I was on British television every night calling for the Queen to be dethroned and kicked out on the streets, many British people would also call for me to be deported. Morgan is subverting the very foundation of American freedom, the second amendment. 

 
Morgan is clearly correct in stating that stating opinions in favor of gun control is protected by the First Amendment. The real question concerns whether Taranto and Jones are correct in there being grounds for the federal government to deport the chat show host.

In Kleindienst v. Mandel, Belgian journalist Ernest E. Mandel – who was editor-in-chief of the Belgian Left Socialist weekly La Gauche – was appealing being denied a nonimmigrant visa to visit the United States in the fall of 1969 to speak at a conference. The Court upheld the denial of the visa on the grounds that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 provided that avowed Communists such as Mandel were to be denied visas unless the Attorney General approved it at his or her discretion. At the time, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 stated that aliens were ineligible for visas if they fell into certain categories.  Aliens to be excluded from receiving visas included:

Aliens … who advocate the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship ….

Aliens who write or publish . . . (v) the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism or the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship ….

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 has since been amended. It now states “any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party … is inadmissible.”

The first thing to note is that Piers Morgan is already in the country, and his visa would have to be revoked for him to be deported. The second more important point is that there are simply no grounds on which to deport Morgan. There is no evidence that he is or ever has been the member of any totalitarian party. In fact, it is rather unlikely that he ever has. One would guess that Morgan is most likely a member of the UK’s Labour Party, which is equivalent to the Democratic Party of the United States. Therefore, Kleindienst v. Mandel simply is not relevant to Morgan.

Morgan is expressing a fairly mainstream opinion today. Stricter gun control laws are advocated by many Americans. While such an argument is dubious, dubious opinions are not forbidden in the United States. The attitude expressed by Taranto, Jones, and the signers of the petition to deport Morgan is a symptom of the disease of attacking one inalienable natural right to defend another one. The remedy to bad speech is not to censor it. The remedy is good speech. The case in defense of the Second Amendment is far stronger than the case against it, and Morgan is not exactly a skilled orator. The answer is not to kick Morgan out of the country but to ridicule him and to make loud and strong arguments in defense of the Second Amendment.  

Batman the Neocon

Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises is a flawed masterpiece in which the talented director is able to complete the vision of his Batman trilogy even with the tragic absence of the late Heath Ledger. However, The Dark Knight Rises is also a dark and cynical Neoconservative propaganda piece. In some ways, this should come as no surprise. The second installment of Nolan’s trilogy – The Dark Knight – had many Neoconservative elements including a technologically advanced device for invading the privacy of each and every resident of Gotham City and an “enhanced interrogation” scene. The Dark Knight Rises takes the Neoconservatism of the first two films to a whole new level.

Perhaps the politics of The Dark Knight Rises should not be surprising. Christopher Nolan’s co-writers have both openly displayed Neoconservative tendencies. Nolan’s brother Jonathan is the creator of the CBS drama “Person of Interest,” a sci fi drama in which the protagonists use a Minority Report type of computer to predict and prevent future crimes. Nolan’s other co-writer David S. Goyer is one of the co-writers of two of the Neoconservative Call of Duty video games. In fairness, Nolan does not seem to be as politically motivated as his co-writers. He appears to wish to present a French Revolution homage – which he ham-fistedly pounds home with the Bastille-like Blackgate and the way too obvious use of a passage from A Tale of Two Cities. Unfortunately, he fails to see how odd this homage is. The failure of the French Revolution led to the rise of Napoleon, which was not a good thing for the French people.  

The following are a few of the many Neoconservative tenets that are portrayed in this superhero blockbuster.

1. Human beings only possess value as part of a collective.

Neoconservatism is a radical form of collectivism in which the mass of humanity are not viewed as individuals but only seen as having value as part of society as a whole. During the course of the film, the residents of Gotham City are almost never featured as individuals. Nolan mostly films them as part of a large crowd. They are nameless and faceless. Only Gotham City as a whole matters.

2. Human beings are wicked and weak

Neoconservatism sees human beings as inherently wicked and views strong leadership as necessary to prevent them from acting on their dark impulses. The Dark Knight Rises presents the working class of Gotham City as a weak mass of thieves who are only prevented from committing crimes by the presence of a militarized police force and a vigilante in a funny suit. As soon as Bane gains control of Gotham City, the wicked residents begin to loot the homes of the wealthy.

Batman as the heroic embodiment of Neoconservatism is extremely mistrusting of the people. Rather than give the world the new nuclear fusion technology that could provide cheap energy, he fears that the device could be made into a weapon. Ironically, the beautiful Miranda Tate, who chides Bruce Wayne for not trusting the people, turns out to be a terrorist who seeks to use the technology as a nuclear weapon. In this way, the film portrays someone with humanistic impulses as a wicked villain who has a wicked ulterior motive.

The residents of Gotham City are quickly swayed by Bane’s bizarre Occupy Wall Street style social justice sloganeering. Instead of resisting him, they seem quite pleased to be led by another strong leader. Given that Gotham City is an analog of New York City, the people are not armed. They are likely too wicked to be trusted with firearms anyway.

3. Pragmatic Machiavellian leadership is necessary to govern the wicked masses.

Neoconservatism views Machiavelli as its paradigm for great leadership. Strong leaders must control the wicked masses by employing a combination of heavy-handed tactics and subtle propaganda. Fear of the government must be instilled in them to keep them in line.

Gotham City’s police force appears outfitted in SWAT team armor and with heavy weaponry more often than not. An unarmed populace would clearly be terrified of such a militarized police force.

Neoconservatives are fond of Plato’s notion of the Noble Lie – the idea that leaders must tell beautiful lies to the people in the manner that parents tell fairytales to their children. The late Harvey Dent is portrayed as the paragon of virtue although he was in fact a crazed murderer. Alas, the weak and wicked masses would not be able to deal with this truth, so the true nature of the deceased district attorney can never be revealed. The state – in the symbolic form of Harvey Dent – must be worshipped despite not being worthy of such worship. Batman knows the truth about Dent but convinces Commissioner Gordon to perpetuate the Noble Lie. Batman possesses Platonic esoteric wisdom that enables him to decide what the people can and cannot deal with. The people cannot handle the truth. 

Batman also convinces the leadership of Gotham City to exploit the false icon of Dent as a way to take away Fourth Amendment protections. This is made clear by how many crooks are locked up at Blackgate Prison and how they would not be in prison were it not for the “Dent Act.” With all of the police powers already in place, what more could the police possibly get unless it is some kind of violation of the Fourth Amendment?

But at least the masses have their bread and circuses to occupy their little minds. The nameless faceless masses get to enjoy a football game. Until the terrorist blows the game up.

4. Torture is good.

There is nothing that Neoconservatives love more than torture – except maybe oil, Strauss, and Trotsky. The Dark Knight features a scene where Batman employs “enhanced interrogation” on the Joker. Batman begins a police interrogation of the Joker by slamming his head against a table. The costumed “hero” then proceeds to slam the suspect against a wall, onto a table, and then punches him like an even more mentally deranged version of Jack Bauer.  

The Dark Knight Rises opens with a CIA goon torturing terrorist suspects on an airplane by holding a gun to their heads and threatening to shoot them and throw them out of the plane if they do not tell him what he wants to know. These acts of torture are not presented ambiguously. They are presented as if there is no question about whether or not they are appropriate. 

Batman also beats Bane mercilessly in order to try to find the trigger for the nuclear device. In the world of Neoconservatives, there is always some ticking time bomb somewhere and the only way to find it is to torture someone. Jack Bauer had “WHERE IS THE BOMB?” and Bruce Wayne has “WHERE IS THE TRIGGER?”

5. There are terrorists everywhere.

Neoconservatives see terrorists everywhere. Al Qaeda may be hiding in your closet or under your bed. They are more paranoid about terrorists than McCarthy was about Commies. Sure enough, in The Dark Knight Rises they are everywhere – even on Bruce Wayne’s board of directors! These terrorists must be feared or they will “follow you home” and take over your city. And they do. Bane quickly takes over Gotham City. These terrorists want to blow everything up. And they do. Bane blows up the field at a pro football game in Gotham City. The wicked and weak masses are simply never safe from terrorism. Neoconservatives have an unhealthy fetish with small portable nuclear devices. And what does Bane have? A portable nuclear device! At least Batman never utters “they hate us for our freedom” during the incredibly long running time of the film.

6. Folks from the Middle East are scary.

Where are the villains of The Dark Knight Rises from? Oh yes. The Middle East. Damned A-rabs! Racism much?

7. Oil is king.

Neoconservatives hate Arabs but love what is beneath Arab lands. They love oil so much that a video of Leo Strauss slathering oil over his naked body would be their favorite pornography. There could not possibly be any viable alternative to petroleum. Of course not. Nuclear fusion will get into the hands of terrorists, so we must continue to use oil.

On top of its Neoconservatism, The Dark Knight Rises also sprinkles on a layer of Economic Royalism – greed masquerading as Objectivism.

1. The wealthy are always good – especially when they have inherited that wealth and not created it.

Bruce Wayne/Batman was the first of many nepotite playboy superheroes. He is wealthy and inherited it, ergo he is good. Wealthy individuals who were born poor and created their wealth through hard work are always suspect. As with Lex Luthor in the Superman mythos or Justin Hammer in Iron Man 2, Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul is suspect for having been born into poverty and having worked her way to the top. The nouveau riche are evil!

2. The poor are envious of the wealthy and will eat them if given the chance.

As mentioned, the poor masses of Gotham City immediately begin to loot the homes of the wealthy when given the chance. They also seem to enjoy the Marxist-style “show trials” and executions of the upper class members of Gotham society.

3. Opposing coporatism = Marxism.

Bane’s pseudo Occupy Wall Street movement is presented as Marxist. He stokes the fires of “class warfare” by saying that the wealthy are “corrupt” and keep down the poor with “myths of opportunity.” He claims that he will give Gotham “back to you the people.” He promises that “the powerful will be ripped from their decadent nests and cast out into the cold world that we know and endure.” The truth is that if Gotham City is akin to New York City, then many of those who face trial in Jonathan Crane’s kangaroo court are probably bankers. Maybe they do deserve their fate more than Nolan will admit. Nevertheless, Nolan’s presentation of Bane’s message as a buffoonish caricature of Marxism is cynical. Also notice that the analogy he creates is that Occupy Wall Street and those like it are really just “astroturf” movements backed by evil terrorists. Apparently, the choice is either corporatism or Marxist terrorism. Free markets are not an option. 

 

4. Orphanages are good.

Economic Royalists love orphanages. They fetishize them almost as much as Neoconservatives fetishize oil and torture. Who can forget twerpy Newt Gingrich talking about orphanages in 1994? How fitting is it that the Wayne Manor becomes an orphanage at the end of the film? Hopefully none of those urchins will ever grow up to be self-made entrepreneurs. If they do, some nepotite playboy superhero will likely have to take him or her out.

In closing, I must wonder if America will ever produce and market a libertarian superhero like V from England’s V for Vendetta. Batman is a Neoconservative. Superman is a “traditionalist.” Iron Man is an Economic Royalist whose company is part of the Military-Industrial Complex. Spiderman is a guilty white liberal. When will someone bring Captain Liberty or Freedom-man to life in comics or on the silver screen?

    

Some Dubious Explanations for America’s Mass Shooting “Epidemic”

Since the turn of the century, the United States has endured over thirty mass shootings. The inevitable question is “Why?” The suggested answers are typically so dubious that they are often no better than blaming the moon, yellow bile, or demons.

1. Mass shootings are the result of the secularization of America. God has been banished from public schools and the public square, and the Godless monsters that are produced do not know right from wrong and place no value on human life. (The Huckabee/O’Reilly “Traditional Christian Folks” Explanation)

While this explanation makes for some nice red meat for Christian fundamentalists and other “traditionalists,” it happens to be ridiculous. Unless one fails to let facts get in the way of a good argument, it is dubious. Alternet’s Amanda Marcotte has written a piece that ranks the eight best nations to be an atheist based upon factors such as having a high percentage of nonbelievers. These nations – ranked from highest to lowest on Marcotte’s scale – are: the Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, France, Norway, Australia, and Japan. If the explanation set forth by moral blowhards such as Mike Huckabee and Bill O’Reilly is plausible, then one would expect these nations of “secular-progressive” heathens to be places where mass shootings and other violent Godless atrocities occur on a regular basis.

Alas, the facts show that this is dubious. The Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and Australia have had no mass shootings in the twenty-first century. Japan has had two, France has had three, and Norway has had one – the notorious Anders Behring Breivik who murdered 77 and injured 242 others in 2011. Of these five mass murderers, at least two were anything but secular. Breivik was an extremely religious Christian. French mass murderer Mohammed Merah was a devout Muslim who killed seven and injured eight in March of 2012.

These eight “heathen” nations have among the lowest homicide rates in the world – ranging from .3 per 100,000 to 1.7 per 100,000. These rates compare very favorably with the homicide rate of 4.2 per 100,000 of the United States. If secularism has not caused a rash of mass killings or homicides in general in these eight nations, then there is no reason to believe that the comparatively moderate level of secularism in the United States was a causal factor for mass killings and homicides.

2. Mass shootings are the result of the corrupt media with its violent video games, music videos, movies, and television shows. (The NRA “Let’s Find Another Scapegoat” Explanation)

High levels of exposure to violent movies, television shows, music videos, and video games clearly have an effect on people – particularly children. Studies have shown that such exposure creates both detrimental short-term and long-term effects. Dr. L. Rowe Huesmann of the University of Michigan claims that an analysis of studies demonstrates that exposure to violent media causes children to become more aggressive in both the short and long-term and that this effect is significant enough to be considered a public health threat. In the long-term, exposure to media violence can cause desensitization to violence, cause individuals to create cognitive “scripts” that encourage them to act violently like in the violent media they watch, and to seek out others who are similarly aggressive.

Violent video games – some of the most popular of which among young American gamers are ultraviolent and realistic “first person shooter games” – have also been shown to increase aggressiveness after exposure. Craig A. Anderson of the University of Iowa and his associates have conducted a meta-analytic review of the effects of video games on empathy and pro-social behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Among their most intriguing claims is that video game violence has different effects upon gamers in Western and Eastern cultures. They claim that “cultures characterized by collectivistic values, high moral discipline, a high level of egalitarian commitment, low uncertainty avoidance, and which emphasize values that are heavily Confucian showed lower levels of aggression than their counterparts.” Gamers in Eastern cultures such as Japan also favor different kinds of video games than their American counterparts. While Americans favor action and sports games, Japanese gamers prefer role-playing games that “often involve text reading, patience, and cooperative fights against computer-controlled characters.” The ways in which individuals in the West and individuals in the East interpret the world also greatly differs. Those in the East, for example, are more likely to pay attention to “situational contexts” in video games and other media. Based upon their meta-analysis, Anderson and his colleagues found that experimental evidence clearly shows that violent video game play is a causal factor in future aggressive behavior.

Truth be told, the idea that exposure to violent media is a causal factor in aggressive behavior is neither novel nor surprising. The important question is what this should mean for public policy. At this point, it is far too tempting to begin down the slippery slope of censorship. Parents have the right and responsibility to regulate what media their children consume. There is more than enough information available for parents to determine what media might not be appropriate for their children. Rather than creating a new scapegoat for violence in American society, parents simply need to more closely monitor what their children do. Nobody forces parents to allow their children to play violent video games. Furthermore, parents have the greatest influence on how their children develop during the formative years. If children are drawn to violent video games, perhaps that says more about the failure of parents to properly socialize their children than it does about the behavior of “corrupt” media corporations that are simply offering products that are apt to sell. While this may sound like an overly simplistic solution, it is nevertheless true. Freedom of expression can produce dangers, but censorship is far more dangerous.  

It must also be noted that aggressiveness in and of itself is not a bad thing. Aggressiveness can be channelled into violence, but likewise it can be channelled into positive activities like sport or work. 

The differences between the effects of video game violence on the Western individualist psyche and the Eastern collectivist psyche must also be placed into a broader context. The “Confucian” worldview does not make individuals in Eastern cultures immune to desensitization or violent cruelty. Lower levels of aggression did not prevent Tojo’s Japan from perpetuating atrocities upon China and Korea. This also did not prevent the cruelty of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia or the Maoists in China. If anything, while an Eastern collectivist mindset can perhaps decrease short-term small scale aggression, it is obvious that it can lead to long-term large scale aggression directed by political leaders.

3. Mass shootings are the result of a failure of the mental health system and mental health laws. If rampage killers could be identified before they kill, then tragedies could be averted. Lax civil commitment laws prevent society from being able to intervene and help troubled individuals before it is too late. (The “Everyone Is Crazy and Should Be Placed in an Asylum except Me” Argument)

Whenever a tragedy like that in Newtown occurs, many grab their torches and pitchforks and look for a way to blame the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Shortly before the Newtown shootings, the ACLU successfully opposed a proposed “assisted outpatient treatment” law (AOT) in Connecticut. Such a law allows for the “mentally ill” to be institutionalized and medicated without having harmed themselves or others or having expressed an intent to do so. Connecticut is one of only six states not to have an AOT law on the books.

The now common notion of institutionalizing those who are considered a “threat to themselves or others” is pernicious. Psychiatrists are not akin to the “pre-cogs” of Minority Report and cannot predict what individuals will or will not become violent. Psychiatry is such an imprecise science that one should probably call it a “science” instead of a science. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) “creates” mental illnesses by simply establishing criteria for them in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals. In most cases the APA has no empirical evidence concerning what is or is not a “mental illness” and has no idea about what the physiological causes of such “diseases” are. One need only be reminded that homosexuals were once considered “mentally ill” and women were stigmatized by psychiatry as being “hysterical.” In many ways, psychiatry is to medicine what astrology is to astronomy.  

One need not be a radical Scientologist (or wet one's pants about Xenu) to understand the dangers of excessive power being given to the psychiatric expert class in taking away the liberty of those labeled “mentally ill.” The Soviets regularly abused psychiatry to label dissidents as “mentally ill” and to forcibly institutionalize them. Once inside mental institutions, dissidents were often subjected to torture of various kinds.

If one believes something like that could never happen here, consider the following. In August of 2012, former Marine Brandon J. Raub was kidnapped by police and committed temporarily to a mental hospital after he posted “anti-government” messages on FaceBook. Raub was held against his will in the “snakepit” for a week before a judge finally ordered him to be released. If this is a sign of things to come, be afraid. Be very afraid.

The APA has already made dissent against authority a “mental illness” for children by diagnosing such dissent as “oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD), which can be roughly defined as “a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures.” According to Johns Hopkins: “Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a behavior disorder, usually diagnosed in childhood, that is characterized by uncooperative, defiant, negativistic, irritable, and annoying behaviors toward parents, peers, teachers, and other authority figures.” That is right. If you are an “annoying” child, you may be “mentally ill.” The APA offers the following criteria for this “mental illness.”

A pattern of negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior lasting at least 6 months, during which four (or more) of the following are present: 

(1) often loses temper
(2) often argues with adults
(3) often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
(4) often deliberately annoys people
(5) often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior
(6) is often touchy or easily annoyed by others
(7) is often angry and resentful
(8) is often spiteful or vindictive
Note: Consider a criterion met only if the behavior occurs more frequently than is typically observed in individuals of comparable age and developmental level. 

If the danger of this is not already apparent, consider the following scenario. Jane is ten years old. Her parents are virulent anti-Semites. When her parents tell her to stay away from her Jewish playmates, she refuses. When her parents tell her to read Mein Kampf, she refuses. When her parents try to teach her about Nazi ideology and Aryan race theory, Jane often loses her temper and argues with them. She often annoys her family and their Neo-Nazi friends and becomes easily annoyed when they begin to blame Jews for all of the evils in the world. She often becomes angry and resentful when her parents tell her that the Holocaust is a hoax and that it did not really occur. Jane often becomes spiteful and vindictive when her parents do not allow her to play with her Jewish friends or do not allow her to see a movie with Jewish directors or actors, read a book by a Jewish author, or do anything that is not overtly anti-Semitic. Guess what. Jane is “mentally ill.” Jane has ODD. Psychiatrists may very well prescribe medications to treat Jane’s ODD. They may prescribe methylphenidate (Ritalin). Methylphenidate produces the following side effects.

·                     fast, pounding, or uneven heartbeats;

·                     feeling like you might pass out;

·                     fever, sore throat, and headache with a severe blistering, peeling, and red skin rash;

·                     aggression, restlessness, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or motor tics (muscle twitches);

·                     easy bruising, purple spots on your skin; or

·                     dangerously high blood pressure (severe headache, blurred vision, buzzing in your ears, anxiety, confusion, chest pain, shortness of breath, uneven heartbeats, seizure).

Less serious Ritalin side effects may include:

·                     stomach pain, nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite;

·                     vision problems, dizziness, mild headache;

·                     sweating, mild skin rash;

·                     numbness, tingling, or cold feeling in your hands or feet;

·                     nervous feeling, sleep problems (insomnia); or

·                     weight loss.

The psychiatrists may prescribe dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine). Dextroamphetamine produces the following side effects.

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Stop using this medication and call your doctor at once if you have a serious side effect such as:

·                     fast or pounding heartbeats;

·                     feeling light-headed, fainting;

·                     dangerously high blood pressure (severe headache, blurred vision, buzzing in your ears, anxiety, confusion, chest pain, shortness of breath, uneven heartbeats, seizure); or

·                     tremor, restlessness, hallucinations, unusual behavior, or motor tics (muscle twitches).

Less serious side effects may include:

·                     headache or dizziness;

·                     sleep problems (insomnia);

·                     dry mouth or an unpleasant taste in your mouth;

·                     diarrhea, constipation;

·                     loss of appetite, weight loss

The psychiatrists may also prescribe risperidone (Risperdal) to decrease Jane’s “disruptive behaviors.” Risperidone produces the following side effects.

Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction while taking risperidone (the active ingredient contained in Risperdal) hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat.

Stop taking risperidone and call your doctor at once if you have a serious side effect such as:

·                     fever, stiff muscles, confusion, sweating, fast or uneven heartbeats;

·                     restless muscle movements in your eyes, tongue, jaw, or neck;

·                     drooling, tremor (uncontrolled shaking);

·                     seizure (convulsions);

·                     fever, chills, body aches, flu symptoms;

·                     nosebleeds;

·                     white patches or sores inside your mouth or on your lips;

·                     trouble swallowing;

·                     feeling like you might pass out

Less serious side effects of risperidone may include:

·                     weight gain;

·                     feeling hot or cold;

·                     headache, dizziness;

·                     drowsiness, tired feeling;

·                     dry mouth, increased appetite;

·                     feeling restless or anxious;

·                     sleep problems (insomnia);

·                     nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, constipation;

·                     cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose; or

·                     mild skin rash.

Jane’s parents need not be anti-Semites. Alter the above scenario to make them racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. Nothing changes. In any of these cases, Jane is “mentally ill” and a candidate to be poisoned with psychiatric medications. 

Before long, the APA will undoubtedly create a new “mental illness” that is an adult version of ODD – just as it earlier created “antisocial personality disorder” as an adult analog of “conduct disorder.” Such a new “mental illness” would lead to those who resemble Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Lucy Burns being diagnosed as “mentally ill.” 

In short, too many seek to scapegoat groups such as atheists, media corporations, or the “mentally ill” for mass murders instead of laying the blame on the mass murderers themselves.