Liberal Orthodoxy and the Squelching of Political or Scientific Dissent by Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Monday, August 19, 2013


In George Orwell’s futuristic novel 1984, the leader, Big Brother, used perpetual war and police state terror to maintain control of a portion of the globe. He also used “Newspeak,” the manipulation of language to more subtly control the people and preserve his dictatorship ofBig Brother submission. By curtailing language, destroying literature, and reducing words in the vocabulary of the people, Big Brother and his Ministry of Truth sought to control thinking and behavior: “We’re cutting the language down to the bone…Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year.”(1)

Newspeak and the Ministry of Truth

Orwellian Newspeak also used doublespeak, defining political terms by their complete opposite, and deconstructed the meaning of words to more easily subdue the masses. Reducing words and distorting their meaning limited politically “wrongful” thoughts.  Big Brother's ministry of propaganda and disinformation was called the “Ministry of Truth.” Likewise, the Ministry of War was called the “Ministry of Peace,” and the official slogans were quite instructive: “War is Peace,” “Ignorance is Strength,” and very apropos, “Freedom is Slavery.” By this perversion of language and distortion of the truth, Big Brother could establish social and economic conformity and enforce political orthodoxy upon the hapless population of Oceania, while maintaining perpetual war with Eurasia and Eastasia.

In Big Brother’s police state deeds are not only punished but also "wrongful” thoughts — i.e., “thoughtcrimes” — to maintain conformity, submission, and extinguish potential political opposition. As Big Brother observed: “In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally John Hurt as Winston Smith in 1984impossible because there will be no words in which to express it.” And in fact, toward the end of the book, the hero, Winston Smith (played by John Hurt in the film “1984”; photo, right), has been broken, robbed of words and memory, so that “Winston’s imagination decays and he can no longer fix his mind on any one subject for more than a few moments at a time.”(1)

We are not prosecuting Orwellian “thoughtcrimes” in America yet, but we are beginning to selectively prosecute and punish motive, such as in federal “hate crimes.” And the degrees of punishment for such hate crimes also depend on the motives behind the crime, the motives becoming more important than the criminal acts per se. Likewise, we have reached the point where restrictions in free speech and the use of compulsory, politically correct speech are much in vogue and quite acceptable to a large segment of the population of America. Submission is much more subtle in America today than in Oceania in 1984.

Conspiracy Theorists and Scientism

A recent article appearing in the magazine Scientific American Mind caught the attention of noted neuroscientist and neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, who commented that the article was “a perfect example as to how science (scientism) is being used to demonize those who disagree with a particular issue.”(2) The issue he referred to was the enforcement of liberal orthodoxy in the sciences, which actually embraced scientism, rather than the free exchange of ideas in the pursuit of scientific truth. Blaylock observed that the article, written by Sander van der Linden, a doctoral candidate in social-environmental psychology at the London School of Economics(3), “goes far beyond just demonizing dissenters of the orthodox opinion; incredibly, it classifies them as mentally ill and a danger to society. This of course reminds one of a similar methodology used in communist countries, such as the Soviet Union, Maoist China and communist Cuba.” Dr. Blaylock is correct. This nefarious practice of falsely assigning mental illness to political dissidents or dissenters in science, of course, is reminiscent of a similar methodology used in communist countries, such as the pseudoscience and shenanigans in genetics practiced by the quack Trofim Lysenko in Stalinist Russia in the 1930s and 40s, not to mention the immoral uses of psychiatry in the USSR in the 1970s and 80s — a perversion of psychiatry still in practice in communist Cuba today.(4-6)

One way to deride those who ask legitimate questions is to call them “conspiracy theorists,” or worse “nuts,” which peremptorily discredits opponents who cannot be defeated with logic or facts. The ultimate purpose is to summarily lump your opponents with real lunatics, so they can be painted with the Area 51same brush — associate those pursuing truth together with those out in left field — establishing a sort of guilt by association.

As Dr. Blaylock correctly points out: “The article begins with — ‘Did NASA fake the moon landing? Is the government hiding Martians in Area 51? Is global warming a hoax? The answer to these questions is, ‘No’…”

Of course, lump Area 51 and flying saucers with those who question man-made global warming! The agenda of collectivists pushing for global warming to advance global socialism is protected, even when the science is still in question, and those inquiring souls who critically wish to examine the alleged consensus in science and the liberal orthodoxy of climate change are branded Conspiratorial Nuts!

Liberal Orthodoxy, Derision, and Mental Health

Verbal or written vituperation can take a more vicious mode: It can take the form of ad hominem attacks. Vladimir I. Lenin (1870-1924; photo, below) was a master of derision in all its variegated nuances. One of his instructions to his fellow propagandists, in fact, read: “We can and must write in language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.”V.I. Lenin

In 1943, Lenin’s directive was further elaborated in the Communist Party of the USSR literature and republished in People’s Daily World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA. It read: “When certain obstructionists become too irritating, label them, after suitable build-ups, as Fascist or Nazi or anti-Semitic.... In the public mind constantly associate those who oppose us with those whose name already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind.”(7) And presto — guilt by association and the opponent is effectively discredited!

The Soviets in the USSR of the 20th century used — and collectivists in the Social Democracies in the 21st century are wont to and still practice — the art of ridicule and derogation, following assiduously Lenin’s advice of derision to discredit their “obstructionists” opponents. Active disinformation, lies, or half-truths are also repeated often enough (using their allies in the mass media) until they become “truths” in the public eye.

Nikita KhrushchevThe imputation of mental illness to political dissidents has been practiced in collectivist and authoritarian societies for decades. Soviet psychiatry, as enunciated by Premier Nikita Khrushchev (photo, left) in 1959, served the State: “Can there be diseases, nervous diseases among certain people in the communist society? Evidently there can be. If that is so, then there also will be offenses that are characteristic of people with abnormal minds. To those who might start calling for opposition to communism on this ‘basis,’ we say that now, too, there are people who fight against communism but clearly the mental state of such people is not normal.”(5)

In other words, it is impossible for “normal” people in a socialist society to oppose collectivism or question orthodoxy in politics or science. Dissent or criminality is impossible in a workers’ paradise because everyone in a socialist utopia is by definition content — so it follows those opposed to the socialist order are not really criminals or political dissidents requiring punishment but insane madmen who require treatment, institutionalization, and rehabilitation in psychiatric facilities. What that rehabilitation really entails Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and others (including myself in the case of Cuba) have described in previous books and articles. (4-6)Russian psychiatry

Political criminals, or rather insane “anti-social elements,” must therefore be re-educated, conditioned, and re-programmed. Incarceration is not intended for punishment but for rehabilitation. Anyone with “recidivist political behavior” has to be pathological, afflicted with a form of mental illness that must be cured by the State.

The Practice of Deceit and Justifiable Censorship

Collectivists believe the end justifies the means. Therefore scorn, deceit, even violence is acceptable if they advance the cause of revolution (e.g., as enunciated by Fidel Castro and Leon Trotsky) and socialism (e.g., as promulgated by Lenin and Stalin). Religion, just as intellectual inquiry that did not serve the cause of socialism, was anathema. Hear Lenin speak on the subject: “Precisely because any religious notion, any notion of a Lord God, even any trifling with a Lord God is an unspeakable abomination, which is taken up by the democratic bourgeoisie with particular toleration (often even with goodwill) — it is for that very reason the most dangerous abomination, the most loathsome pestilence.”(8) Politicized science, as in “gun [control] research” and global warming, or scientism, as a form of state religion, should not rule supreme to the exclusion of real science and the scientific method, nor the free exchange of ideas and religious faith.

Cuban childrenIn the struggle for world revolution and the ultimate triumph of socialism, the end justifies the means. Thus Lenin commanded his comrades: “The communists must be prepared to make every sacrifice and, if necessary, even resort to all sorts of cunning schemes and stratagems to employ illegal methods, to evade and conceal the truth.... The practical part of communist policy is to incite one [enemy] against another.... We communists must use one country against another.... My words were calculated to evoke hatred, aversion, and contempt...not to convince but to break up the ranks of the opponent, not to correct an opponent’s mistake but to destroy him, to wipe his organization off the face of the earth. This formulation is indeed of such a nature as to evoke the worst thoughts, the worst suspicions about the opponent.”(9)

And when idealistic communists protested the down to earth reality and sadism of Lenin's secret police, the Cheka, in June 1918, Lenin retorted: “ ‘This is unheard of! The energy and mass nature of terror must be encouraged.’ He ridiculed the communists who objected to Cheka terror as ‘narrow-minded intelligentsia’ who ‘sob and fuss’ over little mistakes. And he sent telegrams to Cheka officials commanding then to employ ‘merciless mass terror.’ ”(10)

Why is deceit, subterfuge and  — even in America today — the use of slander, and the imposition of political correctness (PC) necessary?  Because lies, obfuscation, and deceit are necessary for the left to quash dissent, exert conformity of political or scientific opinion, and establish (i)liberal orthodoxy. Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate (in 1940, 1944, and 1948), plausibly answered that question over half a century ago:  “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”(11) Another example is that of Henry A. Wallace (1888-1965), U.S vice president (1941-45) in the Democratic administration of FDR (1946-47), who used the "progressive" label for the same purpose as to obscure his socialist platform, as when he subsequently formed the left-wing Progressive Party and ran as its nominee, advocating closer ties with Stalin and the USSR, the UN, and foreign aid.(12)



1) Orwell G. 1984. Norwalk, CT, Easton Press edition, 1992.

2) Blaylock RL. When Rejecting Orthodoxy Becomes a Mental Illness., August 15, 2013. 

3) Van der Linden S. What a Hoax. Scientific American Mind, September/October 2013.

4) Faria MA. The Perversion of Science and Medicine (Part 2): Soviet Science and Gun Control. Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):49-53. 

5) Faria MA. Cuban Psychiatry — The Perversion of Medicine. Medical Sentinel. Sept-Oct. 2000;5(5):160-162. 

6) Solzhenitsyn A. The Gulag Archipelago (1918-1956) — An Experiment in Literary Investigation. 1973 (Parts I-II); 1975 (Parts III-IV). New York, NY, Harper & Row Publishers. Translated by Thomas P. Whitney.

7) People’s Daily World, official newspaper of the Communist Party USA. February 25, 1961, pp. 25-26.

8) Barron J. KGB — The Secret Work of the Soviet Secret Agents. New York, NY, Reader’s Digest Press, 1974, p. 139.

9) Ibid., p. 224.

10) Ibid., p. 88.

11) Cannon L. Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power. New York, NY, PublicAffairs, 2003, p. 125. Ronald Reagan used the quote and it has been used as such since then, although there is no  written record of the attribution as to the specific wording, but certainly to the substance. The Socialist American novelist, Upton Sinclair, (author of the 1906 book The Jungle) certainly wrote to his friend Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party Presidential Candidate): "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label...There is no use attacking it by a front attack, it is much better to out-flank them." We should wonder how Mr  Thomas, responded to Mr. Sinclair's letter!

12) Henry A. Wallace. Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), and an Ex-member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002-05; Former Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002). Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is

Copyright ©2013 Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

This article can be cited as:  Faria MA. Liberal Orthodoxy and the Squelching of Political or Scientific Dissent., August 19, 2013. Available from:

An edited version of this article  appeared in on August 19, 2013. A shorter version of this article also appeared in the Macon Telegraph, September 1, 2013

Your rating: None Average: 5 (7 votes)
Comments on this post

Living an Illusion!

In reference to the midterm 2014 election, a tidal wave swept the GOP to power from coast to coast, the Republicans regaining control of the U.S Senate and fortifying the large majority in the U.S. House, as well as gubernatorial seats and state legislatures. But I have heard it said that America's two party system and political life are mere illusions. Nothing changes.

I felt even worse than that at the time George H.W. Bush squandered Ronald Reagan's legacy and the conservative principles he inherited. With the policies of his administration, frankly, there was not a hill of beans of difference between the two political parties. Both stood for expanding the welfare state with high taxes, power to the United Nations at the expense of U.S. national sovereignty, a global New World Order of Internationalism, and the erosion of individual freedom.

The continued movement of the Democrat Party to the Left and the advent of the Tea Party on the Right have helped to change all of that and better delineate the two political parties, although it is true the whole nation has continued to move leftward, the economy is in shambles, and since 9-11 the nation remains threatened by instability and danger.

With all that said, Yes, I have heard it said by philosophers and common men that life, particularly political life, is a deceptive illusion, and that may well be so. But if it is so, I must add, at least it is so in free countries. Happy are those who live in liberty and are free to dream and live in an illusion. It is a very real nightmare for those who live under totalitarianism — and I must also add that socialism is a big step in that direction. Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

A Very Dangerous Idea!

Screwing with peoples minds and the way they think is very dangerous. To screw with a person's thoughts and the way they think just to force them to think like you. It never works out well for anyone involved.

Interesting information!

The information in this article is a very interesting eye-opener, and once pointed out, as you have done, it is easy to discern that it is all true! Thanks!

Politics and Science

Politicians throw science under the bus: Column
Alex Berezow, January 2, 2014

The latest international exams — which show that students from the U.S. rank 21st and 26th in science and math, respectively — once again confirm a pattern that emerged in 1964 with the First International Mathematics Study: Compared with their counterparts abroad, American kids are decidedly mediocre.

It would certainly be nice if our students performed better. A first step would be ending the election of politicians who merely pay lip service to science over those who are scientifically knowledgeable. But don't expect that transformation anytime soon.

Why? Because once elected, our leaders are forced to answer to the voters who put them in office. And those voters are, just like our K-12 students, scientifically ignorant. That's not meant to be an insult. It's just sadly true. Surveys suggest that 28% of American adults qualify as scientifically literate. That's far better than, say, China, whose citizenry is only 3% literate. Even so, it doesn't inspire much confidence...

And this is not a uniquely American phenomenon. This common dilemma extends well beyond the borders of our country.

Nuclear pandering: For instance, after the meltdown of Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant, German Chancellor Angela Merkel pushed forward a scientifically and economically dubious plan to shut down her nation's nuclear plants. Merkel's decision was puzzling because Germany is not known for earthquakes or tsunamis. The move was disappointing because she holds a Ph.D. in quantum chemistry and really ought to know better.

Merkel's enigmatic position, however, makes sense in the light of electoral politics. When she made the decision, she was thinking about the 2013 campaign. By agreeing to abandon nuclear power, Merkel essentially eliminated the only reason Germans had to vote for the Green Party. Her gamble paid off: Not only did the Greens lose votes, but Merkel cruised easily to re-election...

Alex Berezow PhD., is founding editor ofRealClearScience, and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors and co-author of Science Left Behind.

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

In an article in GOPUSA, Nov. 25, 2013, "Obama FBI Partners with Left-Wing Extremist Group," Matt Barber writes (followed by comments):

"It has long been suspected that the Obama administration is using propaganda circulated by the roundly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, a left-wing extremist group that, in recent years, has adopted two primary goals: 1) raising truckloads of money and 2) smearing as “domestic hate groups” dozens of mainstream Christian ministries like the Family Research Council, or FRC, and the American Family Association, or AFA..."

Dido: "Excellent expose Matt! So who is the enemy? Peaceful Christian groups, conservative organizations, small businesses, the middle class taxpayers, all the hard working peaceful Americans pulling the wagon.
"And you are correct, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is a left-wing group that should be exposed for who they are — a bunch or radicals, a self-described watched group of leftist Marxist lawyers (shade of the communist front, the National Lawyer’s Guild — who do little for the poor and the downtrodden, but used them for their own purposes.

"For months SPLC supporters and editors in Wikipedia (which itself leans way to the left in political bias) have not allowed posters with different perspectives to edit Wikipedia to correct errors of facts and bias in the SPLC entry, an entry that is all propaganda eulogizing the organization. Nothing critical has been allowed to be written to correct the misinformation posted in that entry.
"Thank you, Matt, also for exposing the SPCL shenanigans of labeling all their enemies as hate groups. The biggest hate group is the SPCL, followed by the Marxist subversive groups described here, including the Obama Justice Department!

"You mentioned the “gay” activist Floyd Lee Corkins II – who later confessed in court that he was spurred-on by the SPLC’s anti-Christian materials – entered the lobby of the Washington-based Family Research Council intending to kill every Christian within.” This is the type of information which has not been allowed to be posted in Wikipedia, not to mention any comments regarding the SPLC general leftist bias!

"You also wrote, “the Southern Poverty Law Center’s … patently dishonest and reprehensible strategy of juxtaposing, as fellow “hate groups,” mainstream Christian organizations like the FRC and the AFA alongside violent extremist groups like the Aryan Brotherhood and the Skin Heads.”

"They used Lenin’s strategy: “lump our opponents with those that already have a bad smell. The association will, after enough repetition, become ‘fact’ in the public mind.” This is typical SPLC strategy to discredit opponents a la Lenin!"
Barber, also wrote: "...The Obama administration has absolutely no business partnering with this extremist organization – and it’s an outrage that it does. If this troubles you as much as it does me, please contact the FBI at (202) 324-3000 and respectfully voice your concern. Then call or email your local FBI office. It’s critical that freedom-loving Americans light-up the FBI’s phone lines and demand that all facets of government completely disassociate from the SPLC and disavow any further use of its anti-Christian propaganda."

mred: "Until Obama is gone, this will not stop, but get worse. Calling the FBI will do nothing but get you on a list and Obama has such tight control over what they are doing that they couldn’t change right now if they wanted to. The only way the FBI could get out from under Obama is to do a complete investigation on Obama and then turn everything they have over to Congress at a press conference. That way Congress will be forced to do something about Obama, like impeach him and throw him out so he can be put on trial for what he has done to this country..."

Iwesson: "I agree with mred, do not contact the FB EYE. Yes, you will be put on, The HOT List. Dear old Uncle Comrade Stalin LOVED lists of people who were breathing but need not breath anymore, all for the good of CHANGE..."

Dido: "If we are afraid to use our First Amendment Right to Free Speech and to petition the government then the Republic is already lost! No, we should call and express our concerns!"

Modern liberalism: arrogance and hypocrisy

Brown: ObamaCare and the Arrogance of Liberalism
October 3, 2013, GOPUSA

By Susan Stamper Brown

...A trip down Memory Lane: Remember when global warming soothsayer and former V.P. Al Gore was caught with his lights on in 2006 when his 10,000-square-foot Nashville home used 191,000 kilowatt-hours of energy? According to Nashville's News Channel 5, that same year the average Nashville household used about 15,600 kilowatt-hours.

Hypocrisy incarnate: Liberals love to spend time demonizing rich people and calculating how to spread their money around. That is, unless you're talking about their money. According to Roll Call, seven of the ten richest members of the 112th Congress are Democrats.

Number 13, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), badgered 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to release his tax returns, but refused to do the same when McClatchy News asked members of Congress to release returns the same year. Incidentally, Romney had a higher tax rate than John Kerry did the year before Kerry ran for president. Secretary of State Kerry is Number 2 on the "rich" list.

Wasn't it Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who said during the 2009 Baucus-Grassley jobs bill fight that it was her belief "that tax credits only go to people who are making money, and they generally keep it"? As Number 9 on the list, Feinstein didn't get there giving all her money away.

As surely as the sun rose and fell today over the white-capped Alaskan mountains I now call home, liberalism will fail. In the meantime the rest of us are charged with spreading truth and speaking with our vote in 2014 and 2016. Anything less is arrogance.

Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist who writes about politics, the economy and culture, and frequent contributor to GOPUSA.

Democrat Pillars!


(by theconservativecrawfish also from GOPUSA)

Authority without responsibility

Spiritualism without morality

Results without honesty

Free will without judgement

Assertions without debate

Laws without evaluation

Journalism without objectivity

Families without religion

Bold lies without consequences

Children without respect

Vision without reality

History without lessons

Quotas without reason

Government power without limit

Arrogance without end

The 4 basic tactics used by the arrogant apostles of secular socialism worldwide are… 
bold lies, smears, demons and fantasy promises…. Expect them, do not be shocked by their use almost daily…. Its is expected behavior because they are naturally toxic policies that have rotted nations all over the globe for decades. Drop the shock…. These apostles mean it; they really mean it!

Forum Discussion: Liberal Orthodoxy

The following discussion was held in the Macon Telegraph (MT) when this article was posted there.

September 1, 2013

Uneed: What a wonderful article, Dr. Faria!

I am reminded of the recent "Clown Mask" worn in the Rodeo. The same clown the NAACP along with the support of the DOJ (Holder) has requested the Secret Service investigate!

Which then reminds me of Nicholas Guillen; nephew of the former poet laureate of Cuba by the same name. He was accused of "ideological deviationism" for making a short agricultural film, ARABIAN COFFEE, which contained a scene of Fidel climbing a mountain while the Beatles' song "Fool on the Hill" was heard playing in the background.

He was of course picked up by State Security and did endure ECT sessions along with other tortures,prisons and 'psychiatric hospitals for the next twenty years...

That is until he was allowed to emigrate to related in Cuba in Revolution — Escape from a Lost Paradise by Miguel A. Faria, Jr. M.D., Hacienda Publishing,Inc., 2002.

Sounds JUST like America...does it not? Dr. Faria YOU have lived it; you should know! Thank you so much for always teaching others about the beautiful FREEDOMS we enjoy in America.

Dr. Miguel Faria Replied to Uneed: Dear Uneed, I almost fell off the chair laughing, as I read your post! So my better half came over and began laughing too! Of course, it was no longer funny when Nicholas paid for his audacity of poking fun at the Maximum Leader! But he finally did make it to Miami and freedom!

That is one of the "funny" (tragi-comedie) chapters in my book, but as you know there are others, reflecting the absurdity of repression and authoritarianism. And here we are in the good, old U.S. led by Obama trying to imitate absurdity — all in the name of power, socialism, and control over their neighbors! I hope you enjoy the book, and thank you for the kind words!

Dr. Miguel Faria to TomKat: It would be better to have a split rule between libertarians and conservatives, while shipping all socialists and liberal democrats to the socialist utopias and worker paradises they admire! But what is your definition of Neo-con? And what happened to the paleo-conservatives? Many other people talk about them but do not really know what the terms mean and their derivation, etc. Thanks for your comment and your thoughts.

Dr. Miguel Faria to Rukidding: The constitution absolutely! We are in agreement! And thank for your comment!Political Spectrum

Dr. Miguel Faria to Uneed: I agree. Today the word "Progressive" is an obfuscating euphemism for a modern liberal, aka socialist. Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), founder of the Progressive Congressional Caucus, has admitted just as much. (See Wikipedia.)

Incidentally, as you know, attached is my pic for the political spectrum from my article, "The Political Spectrum (Part I): The Totalitarian Left from Communism to Social Democracy." Thanks again for your interest in my writings.

Dr. Miguel Faria to BenCats: Hello!

Thank you kindly. I have also noticed what you have observed, and have kindly let "the powers that be" know Frog In Pot that in my opinion that is the case. But for a few of us, those who pay the piper call the tune!

The problem with socialism is that it is no longer creeping but suffocating, but there are all ready too many dependent on government to care. Moreover, the changes have been gradual enough over decades, so that the tale of the frog in the warm bath applies!

It has only recently been with Obama's excesses that the screw has been turned tight enough for some of the fence sitters to notice!

t81: All of the comments for this article are deriding anyone that isn't a conservative or libertarian. Isn't that exactly what the article is against? Or is it only bad when "liberals" do it?

Dr. Miguel Faria Replies to t81: I don't see any of the comments deriding anyone in particular, except a bit of well-deserved criticism of the president at most about a serious and deleterious process well described in my article. Moreover, I think, sir, there is a big difference between a few citizens — conservatives or not — exercising freedom of speech in the forum of a newspaper and a major freedom eroding problem backed by government, as I have described.

As consistent with Thomas Jefferson's thinking (and he may have said), "When the government fears the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."

You should be happy, sir, to observe that citizens, even those whose views you disagree with, still have the liberty to say things you disagree with. Government (with its monopoly of force) and societal censure is another! Thank you for comment and your contrarian view, as Voltaire believed, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend your right to say it."

t81: You suggested sending anyone who isn't a conservative or libertarian to another country. That's a disturbing suggestion.

Dr. Miguel Faria Replies to t81: If you cannot appreciate an attempt at a little humor at a serious situation, sir, that is your problem. Besides, I suggested shipping them to the paradise where they allegedly want to be or wish this country to imitate! Given the fact you could not detect the difference between several citizens discussing the loss of freedom of speech and governmental censorship and societal acquiescence — I guess I should not be surprised at your confusion. Any other criticisms, while I await my dinner, sir, and retire?

Note to the reader: Unfortunately some of the comments vanished (and are now completely lost) when the MT suddenly quit Disqus format on 9/15/13 and switched to Facebook for posting comments. We are happy at least the above comments were saved in our files and re-posted here.

Volleyball and politics

And While you guys worry about politics and Big Brother, I play volleyball and teach people to stay healthy! Mallory Fleming

Unwise Ban on Gay Counseling legislation

August 19, 2013

Dear Dr. Faria,

Thank you for your article on corruption in science. It is the underlying issue that allows the media to manipulate much of what the public understands about so many issues.

I am reaching out to you because of my concern about recent legislative attempts to restrict the right of families to secure psychological treatment for personal concerns that are rapidly becoming so “politically incorrect” that activists - often misusing science - are attempting to literally make expression of a minority point of view illegal.

California Senate Bill 1172 was passed a few months ago and in simple, but not overstated terms, it seeks to take away from families their right to consult with a mental health professional for a child or adolescent who might be experiencing either gender dysphoria or unwanted homosexual attractions if the therapist were even to suggest that these childhood emotions were manageable, alterable, or merely the result of trauma or confusion. In other words, anything but gay promoting therapy would be illegal. In the New Jersey and Massachusetts legislatures activists are now promoting similar legislation.

I am reaching out to you for support understanding that gay issues have become the third rail of modern politics and for you to even consider our view can be perilous, but this isn’t about the right of gay citizens to do anything. It is about denying American citizens the right to moderate their sexual attractions if they choose. It is about something most of us always thought was sacrosanct in America – the freedom to choose how we respond to our own thoughts and feelings. Simply put - my right to a counselor who honors my values.

Foundationally this attack on freedom is fueled by three “big lies” that defy both logic and science but with the support of a compliant media are becoming generally accepted by most people.

•Homosexuality is genetically predetermined.
•Sexual feelings and attractions cannot vary over the lifespan.
•Supporting people who might want to modify or manage their homosexual feelings is unsafe.

The product of this deception is legislation that will rob individuals and families of the precious right of self determination. We contend that people who may seek to conform their sexual feelings and behaviors to a set of values that may be different from most homosexuals should have the right to seek help from those willing to offer them assistance. I hope you would agree that professionals who are offering that help should not be threatened with a loss of their liberty or property.

We need your help. You have the ability in influence the public discussion about this destructive legislation in a way that is unavailable to most citizens or even a small professional organization like NARTH. We would welcome the opportunity to speak or correspond with you further about this important issue.

David C. Pruden, M.S.
Executive Director NARTH
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

August 21, 2013

Dear Mr. Pruden,

We have discussed your letter and Dr. Faria is of the opinion that we should post your letter in the public interest. Socioeconomic and political issues are of interest to our readers. The issue of homosexuality has been discussed here in the context of published articles from a historical point of view. (See the article from the Medical Sentinel by Dr. Plinio Prioreschi at

We have posted your letter in the interest of our readership and the free exchange of ideas, which is necessary for the maintenance of a free society.