Comes the Thought Crimes Revolution: Gays Persecuting Gays

Generations, brought up stupidly on blockbuster Hollywood spectaculars, seem to generally expect that the same might be too true for the loss of freedom and liberty in this country.

This would be a supposedly plausible plot by a known, horrid, unpopular dictator-type person, using, of course, the disgruntled elements of a fascist American military, to then stage a reactionary attack upon the government for a takeover; thus, is the asinine stereotypical scenario given drearily, in plot after nauseous plot (see the old movie: “Seven Days in May”) as written by leftist authors, meaning true believers.

Along with the well-known, progressive dumbing down of American education, few people, therefore, realize that liberty’s loss is normally incremental in nature; things tend to end with a whimper, not a wildly, dramatically revelatory bang. 

And, as Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, well has it, the fellow in power, seeking to destroy civil rights and liberties, may have a truly handsome smile and, equally, be quite charming; his followers, moreover, may even praise him grandly, as a kind of genuinely nice guy, only wanting to do some good for this country.

The Evil and Terror of Hate-Crimes Laws

The Revolution always eventually, as proven time and time again historically, yet turns round to necessarily consume its own; this is, as has been exhaustively witnessed many times, properly because of its very own integrally nominalistic, nihilistic logic and terrible nature; thus, to use a quite conveniently famous example, Robespierre the Incorruptible (and many others) were, in turn, finally guillotined by the (first) French Revolution.

This was after they had already, both enthusiastically and righteously, sent many tens of thousands upon thousands to their deaths ahead of them; this was, of course, in the then assumed glorious revolutionary names of liberty, equality, and fraternity; but, nonetheless, all those people were just as dead and, guess what?, it was not the work of the Spanish Inquisition; the enthusiastic murderers, on the contrary, were gifted men of the (so-called) Enlightenment enthralled totally, by their oh-so-bloody ideology, that had then willfully bastardized reason, in the ironic name of an exalted Rationalism.

And so, a similar form of ugly ideological fanaticism, now exists today, that claims to be justified, in its emotionally-driven virulence exercised in the name of reason, by appealing to the justice of injecting enough rationalism forcibly into politics: hate-crimes laws.  

Homosexuals and other minorities, however, will soon find that the officialization and politicalization, through dictatorial moralism, for, thus, legalistically producing drastic modern tolerance and, in effect, mandated acceptance/promotion is, in fact, the truly most intolerant thing imaginable.  Can American culture and society, law and politics, fully or adequately sustain such thinking?

A rather thoughtful fellow, C. S. Lewis, had opined, quite thoughtfully generations ago, that a brutal dictatorship was to be ever preferred to a perpetual nanny State in that, at least, the dictator would take some time off for his vacations.  More to the exact point, Dr. Milton Friedman would, often, wisely note that the American people were really quite fortunate not to get all the government they had paid for, since a police-state tyranny would certainly result.

Criminalization of Thought Needed

The hate-crimes (read: thought-crimes) legislation mania wildly sweeping America, and now in the US Congress, will so contain dangerous principles against civil liberties and civil rights that will, eventually, be used for the persecution of those very groups for whom such liberal-leftist legislation is supposedly to humanely exist for, meaning the homosexuals, etc.   

This will be, consequently, as the dark night follows the day, though the people of this country may not want that kind of society, with a necessarily police-state culture, to exist. 

Nonetheless, the radical homosexuals, the gay liberationists, just claim that such legislation will, finally, get them the needed justice of true equality (note that modernist God-word: equality) before the law, as to the purported great and ever noble purpose for having these (so needed) positive laws.   

But, the dangerous principles behind such legislation are built upon shifting sand concerning how they will, over time or, perhaps, much sooner than truly expected, undermine substantively and substantially the rights and liberties of the people, of the once free citizens of the Republic.  

As Thomas Jefferson had, intelligently, so well remarked centuries ago, any government, to paraphrase his words, strong enough to really do things for the people must be necessarily powerful enough to do things against them as well; this reality, however, has not changed centuries later.   

Adding the vilely and quite grossly ideologically-inspired actual criminalization of what accused people, innocent remember until proven guilty (at least for now…), might have, perhaps, been “thinking “in the alleged commission of a crime creates enormously crescive considerations; this is as to the massive expansion of the prosecutorial ambitions and ever expandable reach of the ever expansive modern State.  “Power tends to corrupt,” said Lord Acton, “and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There can be, thus, no rational circumscription of the unlimitedness, in terms of the magnitude of such legislation qua positive law, involved with infinitely examining, to the nth degree, what someone might or might not have been thinking.  One ought to, moreover, reasonably consider that the ancient despots, and even autocrats of the 18^th or 19^th century, would have so greatly envied such massive and intensive governmental policing power put at the free disposal of a contemporary supra-State of today.

A form of domestic terrorism, in effect, will so occur that has the legal and substantive sanction of government through the endless efforts of the law; it will ultimately be, nonetheless, basically destructive of true civil social order and dilute any value to citizenship in a country made subject increasingly to a moral police, which can only, over time, result in the empirical conditions, more or less, of a police state, of active statism, of tyranny, thus, previously unimagined as to its actual practice. 

There will result, sooner or later, both real and palpable threats to the First Amendment of the US Constitution concerning potential or actual violations of free speech, which, most likely, can then regularly become real attempts to stifle public dialogue or discussion, deemed not to be sufficiently PC speech.  This matter, of course, reflects dramatically upon the significant reality of the culture war now occurring in America.

What Will the Civil Libertarians Say?

At the least, no true libertarians or any fair people who sincerely respect or revere civil liberties ought to ever favor such a cancerous growth of the power of the contemporary State, which may not reach any conceivable limits, once it is, most intimately, concerned about what people might be thinking.  

Decent Americans everywhere ought to be fairly shuddering in fear at the mere thought that any agency of government, now the US Congress at present, is so seriously considering hate-crimes legislation; with that leftist ideological intention in mind, there is no real limit, therefore, to the political intrusiveness that must logically occur, increasingly, as the government tries to “do good” on a scale not thought of by supposedly reasonable people.  

Even if, e. g., some people might fail to be convicted due to their proven innocence in a court of law, they will, forever, be publicly stigmatized of having been accused of suspected thought crimes.  Good reading, on this too frightening subject, must surely include George Orwell’s highly provocative and shocking novel, his 1984.  

Once the abstract and forever expansive matter of probable or potential thoughts can be made fully or comprehensively subject to criminal investigation, what won’t then logically come under the ideologically intrusive purview of hyper-government, of a progressively-minded State seeking only to do good?  

At some critical and set point in time, one can see it will be logically necessary to suppress the First Amendment to, thus, better enforce certain provisions of hate-crimes laws, of acts of tyranny; the proponents of hate-crimes legislation are, therefore, playing with real political fire, though they seem fairly oblivious to the real dangers involved; this will be, therefore, the proverbial jump from the (supposed) frying pan directly into the fire. 

Few of them seem to ever really know or, moreover, fully appreciate the true fact that free government, self-government, historically speaking, is a genuine political aberration, the noted exception to the general rule; most peoples, in recorded history, have and, thus, still live under variously repressive, despotic, autocratic, authoritarian, or plainly tyrannical regimes.

Internecine Struggles Are Vicious

Denial of this well-proven truth of human perversity, when logically fed by ideologically-empowered fervor, is, in fact, forever the intellectual fate of those radical idealists and political progressives who joyously pave the road to Hell, with their many good intentions, of course.   

It is then no wonder, as yet another case-in-point, that the Islamic terrorists, e. g., enjoy more the murdering of their own Moslem people, on average, who do not agree with them, than they do the killing of the mere infidels.  

As is well known, furthermore, civil wars and such very intensely internecine struggles are, for instance, among the most bitter and harsh confrontations because the contestants do then have much in common, not so much that really divides them. 

Of course, it may be, optimistically, supposed that such future persecution will never become too extreme in America; but, then again, it is a rather disturbing historical fact that Japanese-Americans (and others), during World War II, were put into concentration camps, in this land of the free and the home of the brave.  

And, the US Supreme Court, incidentally, did not, during that era, really have too many excessive qualms of conscience about civil-liberties or civil-rights suppression, regarding that particular matter.  

No Judicial Remedy

A progressive-minded Court, imbued with ideologically PC thinking, moreover, could hardly be expected realistically to ever negatively rule against “needed” hate-crimes legislation, written in quite suitably Orwellian language, that disarms intellectually many critics who do, thus, willingly approve of the “valid” intentions of such laws to legally and morally fight against injustices, criminality, etc. 

But, more than this is implied, it is not at all inconceivable to see intense struggles of this nature involving nonconforming homosexuals who will be made subject to the dictates and effects of such legislation themselves.

Those who do not remember history, one can rightly recall, are (justifiably) condemned to repeat it.  The nature of such laws cannot remain simply stagnant; they are quite ideologically protean in their inherent nature; what may or may not have been officially classified as a hate crime, for instance, in one year might later be easily transformed into a new hate crime just a mere year,  a few years, or, perhaps, a decade later.   

One of the necessarily inherent qualities of thought-crime control is its natural desire for trying to always attain an advanced degree of penetrating thoroughness, comprehensiveness, by which nothing escapes the rabid attention of ideologically vigilant authorities enforcing the law.

Those engaged in, e. g., supra-extreme S&M activities associated with sodomite practices may feel that further legislation must justifiably be passed; this would be to logically cover more excessive activities as to their personal proclivities; anyone who might, later, end up objecting to certain practices, especially if once being engaged in the conduct questioned, could be held liable for a future hate crime.

Thus, some (or many) homosexuals who may not so find, under certain circumstances, that they are (supposedly at least) 110% pro-gay would have to be, thus, subject to the legal penalties. The old saying is, therefore, found to be too true that there can be too much of a good thing, in this fallen world of sinners.

This is, therefore, the road to serfdom with the multiplication of corruption, oppression, injustice, and tyranny that must then result as the evil consequences of an uncontrollable statism, of a democratic despotism; no one will be able to feel a sense of safety in such an America, except, perhaps, the political leaders and associated elites who will have a false sense of security at best.

Some will argue, inanely, that to merely give up a little true liberty for gaining a better sense of security against hate crimes is just a simply minor sacrifice to make for any people.  But, as Benjamin Franklin ever reminds all alert citizens: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Conclusion

One ought to then see, most clearly, that there might not effortlessly be, thus, any final, rational, political, or legislative limits to possibly “doing good” for people; one, surely, suspects that the Revolution, therefore, does finally come to eat its own creatures, in the very holy name of the Revolution, if, one assumes, any justification might be needed. 

Eventually, it will be a hate crime to even hint at being against such laws as contrary to what used to be legal respect for American civil rights and liberties.