What makes me different from other advocates for liberty

.

Continued from:

“Jon Sutz: A creative asset in the defense of liberty”

For many years, numerous organizations and individuals have been working hard to fight for liberty, which I define as a rational, non-contradictory code of individual rights, free markets, and limited constitutional government.  They have assembled mountains of verifiable facts and voluminous supporting documentation that demonstrate the moral, practical supremacy of liberty over the ideologies that are, and for decades have been, at war with it.

Yet the war for liberty is not just being lost, it is being airbrushed out of existence and history, while one lie after another is rammed into our childrens’ heads, primarily via the government-run “educational” system that we are legally forced to financially support. Section 1 contains some of the documentation I’ve amassed to support this contention.

This is not to say that existing and previous advocates of liberty are not serious about the work, or have not done enough of it. The work they’ve done is essential to reversing our descent into statist totalitarianism. Unfortunately, few outside the most informed circles even know that they or their work even exist — primarily because neither they, nor those that back them, perceive our situation as a war of ideas, or are prepared or willing to fight it as such.

I am, and I have a unique combination of creative media skills, experiences and ideas that I believe will be vital in helping to translate the best of their knowledge and insights, into knowledge tools and activism strategies that an adolescent can easily understand, relate to her own life, validate as accurate, and share with others.

This is the foundational value I bring to the war for liberty. The remainder of this page explores other facets of what distinguishes me from other advocates of liberty.


Contents

(1) I recognize the tragic civic knowledge and functional literacy deficits of the average American – and the desperate need to design media that transcends these limitations

(2) I believe that if liberty is to be renewed, it must be advocated on a retail level, to the general public –– not to politicians

(3) I have little formal education, and have faced and overcome great adversity. This enables me to relate to, and communicate with Americans at all levels in ways that many “experts” cannot.

(4) I start all of my activism and political work with what I call “strategic empathy”

(5) I recognize the urgent need to publicly establish the basic principles and history of liberty and its opposing ideologies, in a format that is universally-understandable and -applicable

(6) I am willing to call out the destructive beliefs and failed practices of some of those who are on the front lines in this realm

(7) I believe the fight for liberty must be taken out of the context of religion

(8) Collectively, the five people who most influenced and inspire me are quite different than most others in this realm

(9) I enjoy creating satirical means by which to raise awareness of vital, but controversial data

(10) I view the situation as an ideological war, and am prepared and willing to fight it as such

(11) I have devised frameworks for various types of psychological warfare to advance this ideological war

Conclusion


(1) I recognize the tragic civic knowledge and functional literacy deficits of the average American — and the desperate need to design media that transcends these limitations

Since 2000, I have been compiling a vast array of research data that validates these contentions, and identifies several other critical obstacles to advancing liberty today – which have been all but ignored by groups who claim to be fighting for liberty. Among the most important of these findings is the near-complete intellectual and functional literacy disconnect between the general public, and the most potent advocates of liberty, and the latter’s current lack of effort to bridge this gap.

This data is summarized in the following graphic (source data here):


(2) I believe that if liberty is to be renewed, it must be advocated on a retail level, to the general public — not to politicians

Today, most major liberty-oriented institutions and advocates exist within, and focus their efforts on “the bubbles” of political power, whether Washington, DC, or state capitols. This has also been where liberty-oriented donors focus the bulk of their resources.

The general public, however, continues to drift further into cynicism and anti-liberty perceptions, because they neither understand the language used by the “experts,” nor are they interested in learning it. If liberty is to be renewed, a bridge must be built between these thinkers, and the general public.


(3) I have little formal education, and have faced and overcome great adversity. This enables me to relate to, and communicate with Americans at all levels in ways that many “experts” cannot.

As I describe in my recent memoir, I come from a very adverse background, have little formal education, and am almost completely self-educated. These factors enable me to know first-hand what it means to struggle, economically and otherwise, to overcome significant obstacles, with no help.

I generally don’t publicize these facts to prospective clients or allies, because they often look at my body of work — having consulted on and designed courtroom media for high-value litigation, animations for some of the world’s biggest corporations, and training materials for the world’s most elite hotel company — and assume that I am a highly-educated individual.

In reality, virtually all of my knowledge has been gained through self-study and life experience.  This occurred while I occasionally while I was struggling against severe economic and medical obstacles, living among those of very modest means.  Many of the people I observed and interacted with were engaged in honest struggles to achieve a better life.  Many, however, also harbored great cynicism, resentment, and were clinging to government dependency programs, afraid or unwilling to rise to the next rung on the economic ladder, because they’d lose their “freebies.”

Given the nature of my work, whenever possible, I engaged in discussions with this potpourri of my fellow Americans, to gain an understanding of their knowledge, perceptions, functional literacy abilities, and how they came to believe what they did.

Although other professional advocates of liberty may have also struggled at one point or another in their lives, from my experience, most think, write and speak at levels far above the average American’s ability to to understand them. It is not too much of a stretch to say they are speaking two entirely different languages, and if they exist on two different planets.

These two graphic summarize my beliefs in this realm:


(4) I start all of my activism and political work with what I call “strategic empathy”

I define “strategic empathy” as beginning and guiding each project through with a deep understanding of:

  • The knowledge, perceptions, fears and hopes of one’s target audience
  • The entities that most influence them (news organizations, artists, educational institutions, and other cultural factors)

Many if not most advocates (and political media “experts”) focus on delivering the messages that their clients want, to targeted groups, in often in blaring, bare-knuckles, red-meat fashion, designed from the ground up to get an instant, emotional, unthinking response.

In contrast, because of my humble background, and frequent interaction with “regular people” outside of political circles, I emphasize looking at suggested messaging from the perspective of the widest possible swath of people who could be persuaded, and explain what will be required to inform and motivate them.  Often, this means taking a step back and asking some basic questions, from their perspective:

  • Why should I care about this?
  • How do I know you’re telling me the truth?
  • Where is the evidence upon which you basing these claims?

I begin every project regarding activism and political advocacy from this standpoint, and it is a key factor that distinguishes me from others in this realm.  This is where my litigation media consulting and design experience also is extremely helpful – because the media and knowledge tools I create present the evidence upon which each claim is based, at every stage of the process, much like a courtroom presentation. Through this method, the audience member can pause to check out the veracity of any claim, as it is presented; after a certain point they become convinced that the tool is legitimate, and something that has been carefully crafted.

This 2016 documentary I wrote, designed & produced, to expose how HuffPost (one of the most influential “news” sites) dehumanized a beloved U.S. Army officer who was murdered by an Islamist terrorist – while at the same time, super-humanizing ISIS terrorists, and evoking sympathy for insulted celebrities, and farm animals.  Note that at the bottom of each frame in which an allegation is made, is a TinyURL link, which contains the evidence — and at the end of the film is a link to this resource page, containing all key evidence:


(5) I recognize the urgent need to publicly establish the basic principles and history of liberty and its opposing ideologies, in a format that is universally-understandable and -applicable

As I describe nearby:

“Liberty is dying a slow but steady death. This is not occurring because liberty is losing in an open, public contest with opposing ideologies. Rather, it is occurring because the basic principles of liberty aren’t even on the ‘playing field’ – that is, in the arena of ideological and political battles that the general public observes.

“Instead, our public battles consist almost entirely of several dominant ‘teams’ trying to make momentary tactical gains, towards objectives that are never clearly articulated. And the general public is essentially forced into this binary choice, of supporting one ‘brand’ of destruction of liberty, or the other.”

Until and unless average citizens have a very clear understanding of the basic principles of liberty and opposing ideologies, we are going to continue enabling the statist tidal wave that is now on the cusp of overwhelming us.


(6) I am willing to call out the destructive beliefs and failed practices of some of those who are on the front lines in this realm

In summary, over the past generation, billions of dollars have been poured into institutions, and political candidates and campaigns, that claim to be dedicated to advancing liberty. Yet according to recent surveys, the public’s understanding of, and support for liberty is now worse than it was before all those checks were written.

Similarly, the average college senior today cannot pass a test of basic American civics, even after four years of expense and effort – yet will still be awarded their degree/s. And on a side note, given what we are allowing to be taught in our schools, more Americans age 30 and under now support socialism over capitalism, as they understand these terms:

There are specific reasons why this situation persists, some of which I describe in the Conclusion of my special report on Americans’ civic and functional literacy. In general, it involves the pragmatism and ineffectiveness of the “leaders” of the liberty movement.

It is not due to a lack of money or resources. Rather, it is due to a lack of willingness to accept the complete communications disconnect that exists today. It is also due to a lack of creative thinking, and a similar lack of willingness and ability to “take the gloves off,” and fight for liberty in new, innovative ways, that reach into the mind of the average person and, in the words of Thomas Jefferson:

“(T)o place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.”

The longer we avoid accepting these basic truths, the longer it will be before we can begin to create a renaissance of liberty in America, and beyond.


(7) I believe the fight for liberty must be taken out of the context of religion

When people hear that I am an advocate of liberty, America and Israel, many automatically assume I am a deeply religious person. I am not.

To the contrary, I believe the fight for liberty must be taken out of the context of theology, or any particular religion, altogether, and instead presented in the context of simple, self-evident logic and common sense. This is the only way that the general public will have a chance to unite beyond religious, ethnic, racial or other distinctions, and rally behind a common, non-religious definition of liberty, against all those who are intent on undermining or destroying it.

This clearly is in stark contrast to the stated missions and practices of many organizations that claim to be fighting for liberty.  In reality, they are fighting for their version of liberty – which invariably involves injecting their own brand of theology into public discourse, thus instantly alienating advocates of liberty who practice other faiths – or none at all.

One example of this is on the issue of abortion, which I have generally steered clear of.  Religionists approach the issue on the basis that it is a sin against God — while the most powerful political figures in America, including Joe Biden & Kamala Harris, claim it is a divinely-authorized part of a woman’s natural rights.

Imagine, however, if every American high school student were infused with a crystal-clear knowledge of the following, via detailed 3-D animations:

  • The stages of human fetus development, and its growing sensory perception
  • What the abortion procedure consists of; the actual step-by-step means by which a fetus is assaulted and ripped apart

As an indication of what might be possible if such 3D animations were produced, here is a video that showcases college students’ positions on the issue, before and after watching a video of an abortion procedure:


(8) Collectively, the five people who most influenced and inspire me are quite different than most others in this realm

While many advocates of liberty profess to have been most influenced by one or more of these individuals, I am unaware of any who would name this particular combination as their personal “A-Team”:

my-influences2


(9) I enjoy creating satirical means by which to raise awareness of vital, but controversial data

The notorious Saul Alinsky, with whom I agree on virtually nothing, said one thing with which I largely concur: #5 in his book, “Rules For Radicals”:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

Everything I do is based on evidence, and my satirical projects are no different.

Here is a sampling of items I created in recent years:


“The Coalition for Non-Living Americans”

Across America, certain “social justice” groups are fighting to prevent dead Americans from being removed from voting rolls, while others re-register them to vote, then cast ballots in their names. Exposing and rooting out not only who’s doing this, but how and why, and who is supporting and protecting them, should be the ultimate nonpartisan issue.  Unfortunately, it’s been framed as a hyper-partisan one, and as the problem metastasizes, it threatens to tip elections towards those candidates who are aligned with the perpetrators.

I became determined to find a way to expose this insidious assault on election integrity, in a completely nonpartisan, satirical way.

Here is a 3-minute video I produced that introduces my first “social justice” campaign:

See the full campaign page: The Coalition for Non-Living Americans – Save The West.


ISIS files “cultural appropriation” complaint against ANTIFA with the United Nations (satirical news story)

While the “news”media (rightfully) excoriates the alt-right, neo-Nazis and violent right-wingers, it fetishizes and pathologically protects the violence, bullying and threats of ANTIFA, now classified by the DHS as a domestic terrorist group.

To help raise awareness of the reality of ANTIFA, I constructed this satirical complaint letter by ISIS, asking the UN to order it to stop stealing its carefully-curated “look”: all-black outfits with black face masks; that is ISIS’s trademark uniform. After all, unless they know the specifics, the causal observer might actually confuse the two groups, as they go about inflicting mayhem on peaceful civilians.


“Celebrity Walls vs. The Democratic Narrative”

Top Democrats in the U.S. House and Senate claim that physical barriers to to protect illegal aliens from entering America are “an immorality,” and “not who we are, as a nation.” They have militantly opposed even a penny being spent to build urgently-needed border walls, and support mechanisms.

Yet these Democrats’ most generous and fervent supporters, Hollywood celebrities, live behind… big walls.

I researched & created this satirical video to point out the glaring hypocrisy, and expose the double-standards employed by these “celebrities.”

See the documentation behind this video at: VIDEO: CELEBRITY WALLS vs the DEMOCRATIC NARRATIVE.


(10) I view the situation as an ideological war, and am prepared and willing to fight it as such

The enemies of liberty, both foreign and domestic, have viewed their quest as a war, and have fought it as such, for decades. As former KGB propaganda master Yuri Bezmenov (aka Tomas Shuman) told Americans in 1984:

“Most of the American politicians, media, and educational system trains another generation of people who think they are living at the peacetime. False. United States is in a state of war: undeclared, total war against the basic principles and foundations of this system.”

Where are we in this ideological war? As demonstrated in the following research documents I produced, the enemies of freedom are not just winning, they have been allowed to absolutely dominate the battlefield, gaining control of one vital institution after another, to the point where we now find ourselves: to legitimately question whether liberty will survive after another generation of this assault:

More than any other single factor, their ability to achieve their stunning success is that they view their quest as an ideological war, and have been fighting it as such, on every front. They seek not to debate their opponents; their objective is to destroy their opponents’ credibility and will to fight, and drive them from the battlefield altogether. They view this as a 24-7-365 all-fronts war on liberty, America and Western civilization in general.

In contrast, many if not most of the leading icons of liberty view this as a debate, or a misunderstanding, which can be overcome through one more white paper, or one more book, that few outside their own circles will ever read, or be able to read, or care about.

Our situation at present is the equivalent of putting a professor who rarely ventures outside of his cubicle or regular spaces, into a cage with a veteran, heavily scarred street brawler. Only one of these contestants will prevail, and it won’t be the professor.

My life is dedicated to creating the knowledge tools and activism strategies that will enable this ideological conflict to be fought as the war it is, more effectively than it is now, and with even adding in elements of fun, at our opponents’ expense.


(11) I have devised frameworks for various types of psychological warfare to advance this ideological war

Continuing from (10), just as psychological warfare is a vital component in the context of a physical war, I believe it also must be in the context of an ideological war. The Russians have been doing it to us since the late 1940s. China and Islamists have been doing it to us for decades.

The four stages of these efforts, as outlined by Bezmenov, are

(1) Demoralization: Measures that have the effect of undermining one’s opponent’s confidence in his cause and leaders, and his will to fight

(2) Destabilization: Measures that disrupt the articulated, accepted basic framework of your opponent’s operating psychology and systems; to draw an analogy, to cause your opponent’s “operating system” and immune system to go haywire, and go to war against themselves.

(3) Create a crisis: After the destabilization process matures, and your opponent’s internal opposition to it builds, this phase consists of taking a specific step to push your opponent over the edge; to create a new, precisely-focused conflict.

(4) Normalization: As the dust settles, to convince your demoralized, defeated opponent that the they are no longer in control, and you and your ideological framework set the terms for their existence.

Here is Bezmenov, in his own words:


Conclusion

Child with US flagI contend that turning this situation around will require a complete re-engineering of the message of liberty, and the creation of new media through which to deliver it, directly to everyday people.

At the most foundational level, this will require defining a compelling, non-contradictory description of the nature of liberty, and explaining, in universally-understandable terms, why those with the least have the most to benefit from living in a free society.

Once this is done, tools will need to be designed from the ground up that will be capable of delivering this knowledge to average individuals where they are today – intellectually, literacy-wise, and geographically.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

– Buckminster Fuller

To learn more about my work, and how my creativity, skills and innovation might be profitably applied to your organization’s mission-critical projects, please email me.

.

.

.

To share/print this item: