Tyranny: Dangers of the United States Hate-Crimes Law

If one could go back, say, to the time of about the 1880s to 1900s anywhere in the Western world, progressive opinion would look down upon anyone giving the following “fantastic” prediction: In the 1920s and 1930s, there would be tens of thousands of men, wearing either black or brown shirts, enthusiastically marching in crowds, and giving a Caesarian salute to a (antidemocratic) supreme leader. 

Anyone suggesting that that would occur in the highly-enlightened, early 20^th century, coming as it did after the proclaimed Age of Progress, seen in the latter part of the 19^th century and into the 20th, would have been normally labeled a bizarre crackpot or, perhaps, a surely reactionary lunatic. 

It would have been considered a literally unthinkable idea because of its atavistic understanding of how the governed were supposed to be treated by their (presumably democratically-elected) rulers; this would pertain to a rather dramatic, significant historical reversion to the (amazing) public worship of tyranny.

Educated, cultured, rational, sophisticated people of the modern world, especially in its Western half, had once seriously thought that at least basic or fundamental moral, ethical, and humanitarian progress was definitely inevitable and unstoppable, rationally predictable and inexorable, particularly prior to World War I (the War to End All War, as it was also called), of course.  

But, history and life have always had clever and often malicious ways of playing nasty tricks upon people.   The incredible and naïve thinking, as so thoughtfully and easily perceived in hindsight, of those cheery and amazing optimists was then not generally recognized for just what it truly was, in essence, namely, blatant utopianism.

Today’s Utopians: Radicalized Homosexuals and Related Others

The radical homosexual lobby will, lovingly, celebrate what can be more intelligently seen as a, at best,  pyrrhic victory or, at worst, the shadowy troubling prelude to what will, eventually, become a disaster.  How can this, however, be rationally asserted as being at all true?   Have otherwise or adverse lessons been taught by history?  

A generation or more from now, those made the assumed legal beneficiaries may, indeed, look back in anger at such a terrible law, whose principles are always inherently dangerous throwbacks to more despotic, authoritarian, times seen in sadly recorded human times past and even still in the present, of course.

Liberals and leftists tend mightily, as is too well known, to be substantially uninformed, moreover, about what has been intriguingly called the law of unintended consequences; so, perhaps, more informed pundits and commentators may more readily perceive the greater problems and terrible difficulties involved, which do overtly indicate a harmful future unwanted by most sentient beings in this country.  

One ought to sagely remember, in this regard, that even an enlightened despotism is still, by proper definition, despotic or autocratic, including, by the way, what has been properly denominated as being democratic despotism. 

Along with other informed commentators, Dr. Thomas Sowell, a great thinker, economist, writer, and patriot, has well warned about the unfortunate dismantling of America that is actually occurring at the rabid hands of the ideological zealots currently in charge of this nation, meaning the present Chief of State and US Congress controlled by the Democratic Party; if he were White, he would be mindlessly denounced by leftists as being a supposed racist; but, as he is, of course, an African-American, Dr. Sowell gets just summarily and dismissively discounted as – you guessed it – an Uncle Tom.

Status Replacing Contract among People

Among others, Sir Henry Sumner Maine, author of Popular Government, had historically remarked about how the genuine progress of humanity was rightfully gained by the rise upwards from the political status of people as being mere subjects to that of free citizens; this was, in fact, specifically seen in both direct and indirect terms of the movement from a past society based upon status to one predicated upon free contract.  

Today’s radicals, under bright and shining banner with glorious slogans galore, are just wildly marching further and further backwards into history, into a new dark age, in the grand name of progress (AKA progressivism) and, as well noted, blatant utopianism as well; leftism is, thus, clearly reactionary in terms of its actual consequences for people.

Hate-crimes legislation is, therefore, a clearly retrograde and obviously very reactionary movement backwards toward attempting to forcefully recreate a society of status in that there is the conferral of collective rights; these are given to what, on the surface, appears to be a created category of supposed super-citizens, meaning those who practice sodomy, who are then so eagerly granted what are extra-constitutional privileges not accorded to the average citizen. 

The former are to be protected legally from what is, essentially speaking, of the larger nature of a thought crime matter formulated into protective law to cover a specified category of victims.    More and more, America is becoming a nation of victims needing absolute protection, 24 hours a day, to be rigorously given to all people by the all-powerful State qua Big Mother (worse than Big Brother).

But, there are distinct peculiarities necessarily connected to the granting, through formal law, of such collective rights to an entire category of people, even based upon their citizenship.   Historically, the political revocation of such collective rights can be and, in fact, has been done. 

Those who are plainly quite ignorant of history, including American history, will yet wrongly insist that it would be completely unthinkable, wholly impossible, to ever revoke (collective) rights once given, meaning especially to a collectivity/category of people, as politically so understood.  Many will, furthermore, adamantly say that it just can’t ever happen here, not on American soil, not in the good old USA.

Historical Presentations of Harsh Matters

During the Reconstruction Era, in the former Confederate states, 1868 – 1877, the then freed slaves, through the 13^th Amendment, were made into citizens of the postwar American nation; but, in addition, the Radical Reconstruction governments, meaning the regimes established by the presence of or implied through potential resort to force by the North’s military forces, gave a set of cognate collective rights to the newly Freed Men, as a category of then newly-made citizens. 

But, with the later fall of these imposed regimes in those Southern states, meaning the rise to power of the Democratic Party (coincident with the reality of the Klu Klux Klan as basically synonymous with those Democrats), the Freed Men’s collective rights were taken away legally by those same states; the Negroes were reduced to being, especially by the late 19^th and into the early 20^th century, second-class citizens in firm conformity to what were called the (infamous and highly racist) Jim Crow Laws.   

So, this is, manifestly, one real and historical instance, among others, of how rights, under law, can be both given and, eventually, taken away legally when a new regime of power replaces an old one within the same jurisdiction.  It was not, however, simply an isolated, peculiarly extreme, or tremendously exceptional case absolutely incongruous with all of both past and later historical situations.

During World War II, as yet another concrete example, concentration camps were created, in America, to house and legally imprison Japanese immigrants and even Japanese-Americans (as children of such people) whose inherent rights were certainly suppressed; those who were citizens, furthermore, could not even get any desired contemporary legal redress from, e. g., the US Supreme Court that, moreover, very eagerly endorsed what had occurred, as a logical necessity, truly held as then being so plainly beneficial to the much greater wartime needs of this country.  Incidentally, Italians and others were similarly dealt with, in such a fashion, through those deliberate methods of control and imprisonment.

People of Japanese ancestry, especially those on the West Coast, were treated not as individual citizens with their separate rights and liberties to be legally respected but, rather, as just an undifferentiated or totally homogenous collectivity, as just a racially-ethnic group category; they were, thus, dealt with in this coldly rationalized manner under both the then existing laws and the Constitution of the USA.

Incredibly ironically, given the legacy of massive intolerance in past American history, today’s society is extremely hyper-tolerant beyond belief and any hate-crimes laws ought, logically speaking, be thought of as just rationally and completely unneeded.  Why is this said?   In 17^th century New England, banned in Boston had once really meant something.  The Puritans did not tolerate public blasphemy, dancing, gambling, celebration of Christmas, etc.  Back then, nonconformists or deviants really needed significant protection, if that were to be desired.   Tar and feathers and running someone, the assumed scoundrel, out of town on a rail was clearly a major part of the true American social tradition, of just expected or customary behavior done by a mob.

Throughout the colonies and definitely into the 18^th century, numerous Baptists, Catholics, Quakers, and others got lynched or burned to death; thousands had lost their homes, churches were burned to the ground, etc.; during the 19^th century, the Mormons were notably persecuted and driven out West to what eventually became Utah.   The Roaring 20s, early in the 20^th century, did then change some moral standards, as is known, concerning, e. g., the public activities of women. 

Even in the 1950s, however, in New York City, the police were still able to order teenage girls to get off the streets if they were wearing shorts!   Blue Laws, of course, were still in effect, in various states, up to at least the 1960s.   After the 1960s, however, this nation, more and more rapidly, had changed.   So, the early 21^st century, celebrated, open society of America, in contrast, looks like the fairly nearest thing to Sodom and Gomorrah to be found on earth, except for, perhaps, today’s modern Europe.

Other such important instances can be given, however, it is reasonably hoped that the offered point has been empirically, factually, legally, substantially, and historically well proven beyond any truly rational doubt whatsoever.   

As a foreign illustration, if needed, of the clear results of the law of unintended consequences, the supposed best of intentions were once thought, by enlightened progressives, to be quite benevolently behind the Weimar Republic’s eugenics legislation that was, in fact, much further extended, calculatedly systemized, and radically advanced by the later Nazi regime.  Categories of unfortunate and oppressed people were then dealt with callously and immorally, heartlessly and evilly, as just mere collectivities.   Q. E. D.

The Dark Future Predicted

What all of the above and highly instructive situations have invariably in common is the treating of people as collective entities qua categories, not just as individuals or, perchance, individual citizens legally possessed of their fundamental civil rights and civil liberties as such.  

All such ideologically idiotic hate-crimes legislation, furthermore, easily participates in the overtly Orwellian aspects of thought crimes exercised against people as collective groups or entities, not as separate individuals; their selected protection, under such law, is done according to the, e. g., noted category of behavior, sodomy, functionally associated with all such specified people, within the, thus, now legally recognized category or collectivity concerned.   This is the direct and known result of federal legislation.

All those people concerned had better intensely hope, however, that a different regime of power will never come into existence to violently change what has occurred toward a direction not wanted.  There is a naïve belief, one suspects, that it just could not really happen in a supposedly forever progressive America.  But, one properly knows from history (as suitably illustrated above in this article), if nothing else, to never say never.

While there are millions of homosexuals and others now loudly cheering and applauding the ill conceived passage of such a questionable and greatly dangerous law, those who forget the lessons of history, it has been so well said, are (justly) condemned to repeat it.  

Lynching As a Counter-example Proving the Truth

But, yet another important consideration is that it is a part of broad progressivist mythology that only the needed federalization of a criminal matter can deal substantively with the purported problem in eradicating it nearly completely or almost totally, over a period of time  This is not, in fact, historically true concerning criminal conduct of a grave nature.   

As a highly significant issue, for instance, lynching in America had once been a most serious and disgustingly frightful situation, especially for African-Americans and, usually but not exclusively, in the Southern States.

However, without any federalization whatsoever pertaining to this quite shocking matter, lynching did completely cease, as an extreme social custom qua crime, throughout this entire country after World War II; sociocultural attitudes and opinions had, therefore, openly changed mainly due to the impact of the war and then its aftermath; new attitudes arose that made lynching simply repugnant and morally contemptible to the (predominantly) White majority throughout this nation.  

Many people, nonetheless, from at least the latter half of the 19^th century and well into the 1930s, had strenuously called for requisite national legislation, of course, to more than sufficiently punish all those vilely involved in such illegal, heinous, barbaric, and brutal conduct.   Did the total and, supposedly, extremely negligent absence of the often vigorously demanded federalization, regarding this important matter, absolutely prevent the ending of (largely socially acceptable) lynching done in certain parts of this country?   Obviously, not.   

The minds and hearts of the people were, thus, very considerably changed; this was by which a vast majority social consensus developed that had so hardened, definitely and finally forever, against such demonstrably horrid vigilante acts, contrary to the true pursuit of justice under law.  

Hate-crimes legislation was, thus, not at all needed; a quite ethical and morally profound social-consensus orthodoxy is, therefore, much more thoroughly powerful, compelling, ingrained, supportive, comprehensive, and definitely lasting than is all civil-rights legislation combined and even multiplied a thousand fold.  

And, furthermore, this country’s own vociferous liberals and leftists give very loud and lasting testimony, unwillingly, to this presented vital truth; this is done by their so overtly claiming, clearly avowing, that a now powerfully resurgent and virulent racism, in America, is really behind most or, perhaps, all criticism of Obama.  

Although this is, most thoroughly and vigorously, denied by their conservative and other opponents, the manifest point is still definitely being made forcefully and effectively that, if true as is believed by the progressivists, then no change of hearts and minds has happened as a result of civil-rights legislation since at least the 1960s.   

However, tremendous racial and other tolerance has, in fact, enormously increased in this nation beyond any serious or rational question.   And yet, the massive insanity of passing a hate-crimes law was thought so positively and unquestionably necessary directly in spite of an amount of open-mindedness or broad-mindedness that would have, at the least, definitely shocked the vast majority of people just a few generations ago.

Conclusion

In any event, any modern State powerful and meddlesome enough to guarantee extra-constitutional rights is, by definition, strong enough to also later take them away, whenever thought either needed or, perhaps, simply convenient. 

George Orwell, in his brilliant allegorical novel Animal Farm, had correctly noted how all animals are to be considered equal but some are “more equal” than others.   Collectivism is and will always be, therefore, a very dangerously double-edged sword, though all (monomaniacal) and functionally myopic ideologists don’t really seem to ever understand why. 

They prefer to be, one guesses, intolerably tolerant of oppressing other people’s civil rights or civil liberties to further their own ends, or certainly tolerant of any intolerance directed legally against their political or other opponents.  And, this is why the future looks so very dark. 

It is unlikely that such hate-crimes legislation will ever be soon repealed, and the US Supreme Court is not inclined to take up the question of its constitutionality any time soon.  Even if it did, years later, take a case on this matter, an adverse ruling is not to be logically expected; this is because the Court has tended to mainly reinforce the growth of Big Government, not to stop or reverse the ongoing centralization and amassment of State power.

Injustice, corruption, oppression, suppression, and tyranny have been and will, thus, be the normal historical course of events for the vast bulk of mankind, including, it appears, here in the United States of America.