Libertarian or Libertine?: YouTube - "F___ Political Correctness!" Marina Portnaya, RT America (Russia Today)

I watched the video (below) on YouTube even though I had some trepidations because of the title. Several possibilities went through my mind. One was that RT America (Russia Today, American version) was only hyping with that title because someone said that ("F___ Political Correctness") and RTA wouldn't argue on behalf of sexual depravity in the name of so called "liberty" that is called "freedom," etc. No such luck, as the saying goes. I was not pleasantly surprised. Rather, I was treated to a very naive understanding and immature treatment of the concept of the slippery slope into moral bankruptcy that if left unchecked, literally brings Hell on Earth. The sociopaths come out of the woodwork. Serial killers end up being glorified as liberated (free spirits, freethinkers, so called) beings by the likes of Ayn Rand and Aleister Crowley. In fact though, the treatment of the concept of the slippery slope by RT America was to completely ignore it.

RT America's Marina Portnaya (obviously supported by the chief editor of RT America) argued the typical Godless-variety of libertarianism.

This is how RT America described the gist of the video:

Freedom of expression in the US has given way to many things... Pornography, provocative artists, gay pride and political correctness. Language that aims to offend no one. But is the so called PC way of speaking stifling Americans to a point where remaining silent is safer than speaking your mind?

Now, let me say that freedom of expression is important because, as most people who have reach adulthood at least have been exposed to the concept, shutting down debate means that eventually and sometimes right out of the starting blocks, one's own ideas can be brutally suppressed without receiving any hearing and more so, any reason as to why. That though must be balanced against the fact that ideas can be, and often are, every bit as dangerous and harmful as can be, and also often are, healthful, which is to say, wholesome. Therein rests my point. The term wholesome is exactly my point.

Wholesomeness requires vigilance. It requires argumentation in its favor. That is because if left unsupported, those who work against it, have a field day and drag the center of society down with them into decadence.

If we have innocent children born into the world {and in spite of the claims of Calvinists and Lutherans (traditional) that we are born totally depraved, we do have innocent babies born every day (hence Jesus saying, "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 18:10)}, then we must consider what happens to them when evil is introduced to them as a concept even while the countervailing arguments for why to avoid the evil are also given. The old concept is that if you tell a child not to do something such as stick his fingers in the fan, he will do it anyway albeit perhaps "carefully." He will be tempted to test. However, if you don't tell him, the fear is that he will end up doing it without having been warned of the dangers and will perhaps do so without a bit of care and end up hurt all the more and wondering why he hadn't been better watched over.

So, what is this liberty, this freedom, that is pornography? Is it the fan? Sure it is but worse. So too is the lowest common denominator of the so-called homosexual community and agenda. After all, the "Gay Pride Parades" were not brought forth by the discreet, some of whom might not even want to encourage innocent children to view homosexuality as healthy; and what is this saying f___ this and f___ that if not language that is clearly in line with all the pornography. What does the word mean afterall, and what is being said when it is used. Why is a word referring to the sex act given all the various connotations? It certainly hasn't come out from sanity. Why is an act designed for procreation and bonding between a man and woman in love with one another and who become one flesh, as Jesus said, treated with such utter irreverence and crassness? What good has ever come of such treatment? I can think of none.

A person who is overcoming an addiction to pornography will not find a conducive environment where f___ is constantly being used, for where that mentality exists, the rest of the slippery slope is sure to be close at hand. In fact, even though I don't agree with the Pope that secular society is completely to blame for the pedophilia that was exposed in his church, I will say that his point could and should be modified so that it becomes clear that pedophilia doesn't spring up out of Christianity but in spite of it. The history of Roman Catholicism is not the history of Christianity, per se, though, so I won't go into detail here about this.

The video asks the question as to whether or not political correctness is making Americans into a bunch of sissies (men into females). A very "masculine" father, the farthest thing from a female, doesn't become a sissy simply because he protects his children from sexual depravity and license, libertinism, freedom of evil, slavery to evil, etc. He knows the enslaving nature of such freedom of evil. He protects his children from being enslaved by depraved addictions, which are so obviously at work in the world.

So, I left the following comment on the video:

How far do you go in the other direction? There's no political correctness in the bottom of Hell, so to speak.

Gratuitous cussing is rather immature too, isn't it?

One mustn't forget that this video is by "Russia Today America." If you take a good look at Russia, it's pretty loose and getting more so. Is it libertarian or libertine? Even the Soviets would have said it's becoming decadent.

Russian women and girls used to look so wholesome. Now many of them look more like American sluts.

I am opposed to coercion. I don't want to be coerced. However, I want parents protecting their children without those parents becoming offensive. It is a hard world where the children stop respecting that their parents are looking out for them. It is a hard world that encourages children to rebel against those who say to them not to stick their fingers in the fan, who seek to keep them from pain and suffering because they have compassion for their own children and are not dead sociopaths, themselves abused into being the very problem. Everyone able to read this article has been abused to one degree and way or another. Overcoming for the sake of the children is what's required. It's called repentance, and it needs to be universal repentance.

The video conflates too much. It lumps all license together such that it ends up without saying it's advocating for anarchy which is libertarianism.

I agree that the new censorship of Huckleberry Finn is misguided. Mark Twain was not using the term in an unwarranted manner. He was using it as it was used by the people of the time and place. It should be handled on that level. Twain was opposed to slavery after all. He was an abolitionist. It is not as if the book is a racist screed. Even if it were though, it could be handled as such. The issue then is treatment (how is it handled?) — which side do you come down on, on the given issue.

That said, it is not necessary to show the worst pornography to make the case that it is the fan into which any entering finger will result in the soul being sucked in to be corrupted to such a degree that salvation becomes exceedingly difficult. Finding ones way out and being willing to be guided all the way out becomes exceedingly difficult. Some things are better left covered. One must learn to trust the spirit warning one not to venture further into Hell but rather to stop and turn around.

There is only one place where libertarianism works and that's where each soul is reined in by his or her conscience. The only real freedom is freedom from evil. To have a lesser working conscience is to "experiment" with all sorts of things and to encourage others to do so to their own downfall and ultimate regret if they ever wake up to how it could have been better had they not toyed around so with themselves and others — if no one before them had encouraged their fall.

Yes, PC or political correctness is over done in areas and under done in others. Some atheists want to be free from all things religious everywhere. They want the complete elimination of the words of Jesus for instance. What kind of world would that be? It would be a world where Jesus is needed to show the kind and degree of love that is necessary for the evolution of the human psyche, the human spirit, the human soul.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.