An excerpt from a recent AP article about the Latter Day Saints polygamy situation reads as follows:

An expert in children in cults testified Friday that while the teen girls believed they were marrying out of free choice, it’s a choice based on lessons they’ve had from birth.

“Obedience is a very important element of their belief system,” said psychiatrist Bruce Perry, who interviewed three girls seized in the April 3 raid. “Compliance is being godly, it’s part of their honoring God.”

He also said that many of the adults at the Yearning For Zion Ranch owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are loving parents and that the boys seemed emotionally healthy when he played with them.

But, he noted, the sect’s belief system “is abusive. The culture is very authoritarian.”

This is interesting. Now, as far I can determine, “obedience” and “compliance” are not exactly the same thing from a behavioral science standpoint. Nonetheless, the aforementioned psychiatrist uses the two words interchangeably, so I’m left to deduce that only one definition applies. After all, it doesn’t make any sense to use two words interchangeably but insist upon incompatible definitions.

This leaves the following possibilities:

Obedience – 1. the state or quality of being obedient; 2. the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance.

Compliance – 1. the act of conforming, acquiescing, or yielding; 2. a tendency to yield readily to others, esp. in a weak and subservient way; 3. conformity; accordance; 4. cooperation or obedience.

Essentially, all of these definitions are just alternate ways of describing the same behavior. The difference-maker is what leads one to the behavior. For example, a person might obey or comply out of respect, agreement or a desire to bring about certain ends within a group. On the other hand, one might obey or comply due to brainwashing or the threat or actuality of violence, such as within some oppressive variety of institutional framework.

So I’m reminded of another demand for obedience:

“Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor.” -Theodore Roosevelt

Indeed, the very nature of government is authoritarian, not unlike a cult that either trains its subjects to comply or forces compliance by projecting an authoritative air. A cult like the Latter Day Saints appeals to an invisible deity that is claimed to exist while having all the properties of nonexistence, while the state similarly derives its authority from nothing but mystical ideas like “social contract” and “consent of the governed,” yet demands unquestioning loyalty and capitulation.

A notable distinction here is that, in the case of the state, humans at least exist. However, the humans who ultimately enforce the edicts and whims of faceless gods are every bit as corporeal as those who wield pen or rifle in the name of the state.

Ultimately, the million-dollar question is this:

If members of an institution hold obedience to be “a very important part of their belief system,” and this is the cornerstone for a culture that is “very authoritarian,” then what is the logical conclusion regarding a state that operates in exactly the same manner?

It’s not that statism is a cult per se. Still, one must engage in brazen hypocrisy in order to condemn the brainwashing, threats and requisite obedience of a cult while defending the brainwashing, threats and requisite obedience of a state.

The American Right is in total disarray. Proponents of “conservatism” currently find themselves mindlessly repeating familiar old drivel while faced with the unrelenting reality of their failed (and increasingly incoherent) philosophy. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the ever-growing digital landscape of blogs, news sites and discussion boards.

Recently, a Yahoo! Answers user named “Nikki S” posted the following question:

Are today’s conservatives the same type of people the Founding Fathers fought to overthrow?

Some of the responses so far have been . . . telling.

bugeyes forever
No. Are you the same type of lib who owned slaves.

Zippy980
Just the opposite my friend. Liberals want to raise your taxes and put the Goverment in control of more aspects of your life. This is what the Revolution was fighting against.

joshsybs
Oh come on!
Are you forced to follow a religion of state and governed by your religious performance?
Read some history books.

joe b
Look into the tangible way these men conducted their lives post Constitution and one can easily see that they were Christian for the most part and used Christian language and prayer within the law making bodies of this country. They used public funds for religious purposes in varying ways. The left wing cannot hide this although they chose to ignore it.

Revisionist Historian
You mean the libs?
Haters of morality
Pseudo-Intellectuals
Slaves to sex, money, and racism
Lovers of Islam

southernmale42
The liberals would be. Our Founding Fathers were very RIGHT WINGED.
Besides, you can’t compare then and now, different time, different people, different circumstances.

shutupdummy
todays liberals are, they have no faith in our might as a nation, even the self proclaimed liberal gods like kerry and rockerfeller want nothing more than to damage our military by their actions and words……

The sampling above covers most of the common conservative responses when they are faced with the inevitable contradiction between their purported beliefs and how those beliefs manifest in practice. “Bugeyes forever” and “Revisionist Historian” expertly demonstrate the belligerence that is as popular as it is inevitable. “Zippy980” is in denial, clearly rejecting the obvious fact that the last 7+ years have seen a conservative administration inserting itself into citizens lives in ways never before witnessed on American soil. “Joshsybs” believes that our current lack of witch-burnings and an official state religion somehow justifies the faith-based orgy that is the U.S. Government.

“Joe b” cites the religious beliefs of long-dead men as a valid excuse for funding religion at the point of a gun today. “Southernmale42” proudly shows the world his sheer ignorance, since the Founding Fathers were extremely liberal in their time; so while one should not conflate classical liberalism with the socialistic statism that passes for it today, it’s quite a stretch to assert that Jefferson and company were “right-winged.”

Lastly, “shutupdummy” makes the disturbingly prevalent conservative error of labeling state-worship a virtue — which means he should actually love these liberals, but I suppose his sect worships only the state’s war machine, while those evil left-wing heretics have the audacity to pay homage to other gods, like welfare. Yeah, didn’t you know? Robbing the people to pay for A is so fundamentally different from robbing the people to pay for B….

This insanity is not limited to Yahoo!, of course. Rush Limbaugh, who has given perpetual head to George W. Bush since before the 2000 election, recently went ape-shit on atheism. He’s apparently jumping on Ben Stein’s Expelled bandwagon, which has fundies everywhere frothing at the mouth. Resultantly, Rush sees the same godless conspiracy in academia that Pat Robertson has been telling us about for years (and Ben Stein is now repeating). Guess what, Rush? Intelligent design isn’t science! Claiming that creationists are victims of unjust discrimination within the scientific community is tantamount to making the same claim about flat-earth proponents.

The coming election should prove interesting. Limbaugh and his ditto-heads have long derided the “liberalism” of crazy John McCain. Now that McCain looks to be the guy for the Republicrat Party, hilarity very well might ensue.

In related news, the current issue of WorldNetDaily’s Whistleblower magazine features an exposé titled “The Secret Life of Barack Obama.” This piece purportedly, “reveals [Obama] to be one of the most dangerous men ever to be considered for the presidency of the United States of America.” Granted, WND routinely lambastes left-wing politicians, but what strikes me as odd is that there is very little praise for John McCain to be found amidst all the criticism of Democrats. I think this speaks volumes about the conundrum 2008 has presented to the right wing, particularly religious fundamentalists.

The rhetoric is there as it always has been, but the results — bloated government, oppression and perpetual war — speak for themselves. For all their delusions and fakery, America’s confused conservatives might see a raving state socialist in the White House come 2009. I for one think they deserve it. It is regrettable, however, that these rulers who quibble over who holds the gun in a given four-year span flatly refuse to restrict their violence to their own. If that were the case, I could perhaps keep track of political silliness without having my amusement clouded by a dark foreboding.

I finished this review during LessGov’s extended downtime, so I first posted it at Blogspot. Now it’s here, albeit belatedly.

—

It seems self-evident that a free society requires free individuals. Likewise, oppressed individuals tend to produce oppressed societies. From Stefan Molyneux’s perspective, the core of this problem is a person’s willingness, consciously or otherwise, to cling to destructive fantasies regarding his or her personal relationships. As such, the purpose of On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion is a frank exploration of this issue.

I will also be frank in this review and express up-front that the manner of personal conflict and reflection referenced in the book is not something I am familiar with. I’ve been fortunate enough to have a very stable family and perhaps the best parents an individual could ever hope for. My friends are few and far between, but they are all people whom I would trust with just about anything, without reservation.

With that being the case, I almost felt like an outsider while reading On Truth. Mind you, this has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of anything posited by Molyneux, but I could not personally identify with the philosophical crises being addressed. In this sense, perhaps one might consider me a neutral observer, and maybe that’s a good thing. Or maybe my lack of relation to the issues disqualifies me as a valid critic. Nonetheless, I’m seldom without an opinion.

As I’ve come to expect from Stefan Molyneux, the writing in On Truth is top-notch. The text is clean, logical, easy-to-follow and simply could not have been constructed in a more organized, concise fashion. Indeed, the work is so brief and to-the-point that it reads more like a long essay, rather than a book.

The early portions of the exploration focus on parents and quickly extrapolate to the family as a whole. From start to finish, the principal and crucial concepts that Molyneux attempts to convey are truth and integrity (which he defines as “consistency with reality”).

As the title might suggest, On Truth pays much attention to identifying and eliminating hypocrisy and contradiction within relationships. One notable section is titled “Detonating Mythology” and is followed by an in-depth look at the idea of love, what it means to love (as a verb) rather than just speak of the idea and how love is so often used as a mere mechanism by which one party imposes artificial obligations upon another. This all gives way to larger applications, such as religion and society as a whole.

Ultimately, through illustration and what might seem like pure common sense upon consideration, Molyneux presents a relatively sound case for the existence of what he terms “the tyranny of illusion.” At the same time, he leaves little room for excuses, no rational justification for continuing to perpetuate illusion and fantasy once the prevalence of such things has been established.

Should John or Jane Q. Public read this book? Probably. The oppressive condition of society alone suggests that Molyneux’s thesis is at least close to being correct (whether one agrees with his larger philosophy or not — i.e. Universally Preferable Behaviour, anarchism, etc., which are related but separate issues). In essence, a reader will have three possible choices after delving into On Truth: she can choose to dismiss the ideas entirely, acknowledge the validity of the ideas but ignore them, or admit that there is something in the ideas worth exploring further. And I say “exploring further” because On Truth in and of itself does not necessarily reach any sweeping conclusions. Whether that was intended, I cannot say. Given the brevity of the work, I suspect the open-ended nature was deliberate. From my perspective, it is meant to encourage the reader to realize that philosophy goes beyond reading a book and knowing things. Philosophy is about finding what is true, in turn allowing one to live a life that is based on integrity, which will in turn result in happiness.

In fact, Molyneux himself seems to state as much on the final page:

“This book is not a call to meditation, but to action.”

Anyone who wants a direct, honest examination of what it means to find integrity in his or her own life will, in all likelihood, benefit greatly from On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion. Even if you have trouble relating to the conflicts presented (as I do), you will have still learned something and will know what to avoid in the future, lest you at some point come to relate to the described conflicts all too well!

–

Special thanks goes to Mr. Molyneux for generously providing a copy of On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion for review.

Stefan Molyneux’s books, Podcasts, articles and message board are all available on his website, Freedomain Radio (http://www.freedomainradio.com).