For the majority of my life, I have been the “typical conservative:” I opposed “bleeding heart liberals” and supported law and order and a strong military. But I’ve come to understand that there is a difference between Progressives and even the new Liberal, and that the new liberal is not necessarily an enemy of individual rights and liberty. At the same time, I have learned that blind support of the military and of law enforcement is to support the very tyranny I thought I was opposing when I still called myself “conservative.” Finally, I now understand that we have been conditioned to think in terms that amount to Constitutional subversion, and one of the ways it is being done is through shows that supposedly support the military and law enforcement.
The TV show, NCIS, is the most popular show on television. This show purports to be a positive example of government fighting to protect America and to keep us safe. It doesn’t hurt that the characters in the series are portrayed in an appealing manner. This builds familiarity between the audience and the character, which then causes the audience to feel empathy for a fictitious person. As fans, we buy in to the notion that these fictitious people are not only real, but, because they are “good” and we like them, we either don’t see the wrongs they do or – worse – we are willing to over look them. And by wrongs, I mean that every character in NCIS is painted as a hero while breaking the law, their oath to protect and uphold the Constitution and even violating the Constitution, itself. And that is the idea: to get you to accept the lie that it is “OK” for government to “bend” the rules – just as long as it’s the “good” guys bending the law to catch the “bad” guys. Well, it’s time we understand that, whether you wear a badge or not, if you bend the law, you are one of the “bad” guys.
Recently, I noticed this same trend in the TV series, Law & Order, and I started thinking about what it is that causes someone to be a “bad” guy. Since this trend is most notable in “law-and-order” shows, it isn’t surprising that the “bad” guys are usually people who have broken the law. Now, if breaking the law is all it takes to make someone a “dirt bag,” and that this then justifies the government to break the law so the “dirt bag” can be put in jail, then why do we champion the heroes here? They broke the law, too. It doesn’t matter what someone breaks the law: if the law is the only justification for making someone a bad guy, and a government official breaks it, they are equal to the person they are trying to catch. In principle, there is no difference. In fact, if the rule of law were actually upheld, the moment the government official breaks the law, they would cease to be a government official and lose any and all protections afforded them by the position they had held. However, instead of using our entertainment programming to teach this lesson, they are used to teach people to champion authority – period.
But this deals only with those who break the law. What about people who have committed moral wrongs in these TV shows? Does that justify the characters breaking the law to catch them? The answer must be no. In a free and self-governing society, public servants hold a position of higher duty. There can never be an acceptable reason for them to break the law and, when they do, because of this higher duty, that is a moral wrong in and of itself. But there is also the matter of treating someone as guilty before their guilt has been established.
How often do these shows treat the suspect as though their guilt is beyond doubt? If you have ever watched them, then you know this happens as a matter of routine. That is a moral wrong on the part of the hero characters who are supposed to be upholding the law. Presumed innocence is not only a Constitutional guarantee, it is a principle of Natural Law. Until guilt has been proven, to treat someone as though they are guilty is to cause tangible harm, and that is a violation of Natural Law. In a free and self-governing society governed by the rule of law, public servants who commit such a violation would be open to being sued by the accused – even if the accused were found guilty. Under the Social Contract, until guilt is determined, no one has justification to violate another person’s rights – especially the government. Remember, until guilt is proven, the government is tasked with protecting the accused equally as much as the victim.
If our entertainment media were concerned with individual rights and liberty and the rule of law, they would teach and re-enforce the principles upon which these notions are founded. Instead, our entertainment media is being used to intentionally subvert these understandings, thereby indoctrinating all but the most aware viewers into accepting the rule of authority instead of the law. And even then, even with those who know this is happening, even they are not totally immune to it. This form of indoctrination is that effective, which is why it is used so much.
Oh, and this is taught in our schools, as well:
Fourth-grade students in Illinois are learning that “government is like a nation’s family” because it sets rules and takes care of needs such as health care and education.