Many critics have noted the–we’ll call it ambiguity–of the left’s previously strident commitment to free speech and anti-blacklist principles. This uncertainty about its core values has stemmed mostly from the left’s furious attempts to restrict speech and impose political blacklists. So you can see how some particularly perceptive observers have been able to discern a subtle disparity.
Though the commentary emerging from these perceptions have tended to pool on the vast visible surface of liberal hypocrisy. And while their hypocrisy is plain enough, this rote observation does little to illuminate its key operational dynamics.
Free speech, opposition to blacklists, desegregation, non-discrimination, and every other principled progressive banner had nothing whatsoever to do with establishing an ecumenical social foundation. It’s not about free speech, and it never was. It is instead exclusively about gaining and monopolizing the tools to attack and destroy their opposition. This being a feature of ancient conflict fundamentals. But conservatives diligently fail to understand this. That is because they think they are building a society with their enemies, while liberals work to build one against theirs. In the distinction is everything. Who wins, most notably.
No military commander says if we have multiple modern armor brigades, my enemy should too: I believe in free tanks. The US doesn’t believe in free nukes. Cortez didn’t believe in free horses or muskets. And the union didn’t believe in free repeating rifles as it constitutionally burned its countrymen’s cities to the ground.
These were and are implements to use against one’s enemies, not share with them. And speech is perhaps man’s most effective weapon of all. The left understands this–at least those who do its thinking. Thus it should be completely unremarkable to see their seamless pivot from demands for open debates and despair over Hollywood blacklists, to an iron-fisted smashing of dissent once the tools are in their hands. Again, they were never for free speech. Only for the freedom to use speech against you. Universal values were merely the predator’s camouflage.
Unfortunately, the conservative mind flies toward values like gnats to a bug light. The results aren’t altogether different.
This brings me to something called “gay marriage.” Prior to being instituted in America via the democratic process of Anthony Kennedy issuing an order to 320 million people, this was a hotly debated topic. By far the most common point made by its advocates was one of universal equity attached to a pledge of innocuous result. Essentially, it was: We just want marriage parity, and what harm could come to you if we have it? Right. If homosexuals get “married” what does that have to do with me? The answer is infinitely more than the myopic ever grasp.
I thought this poignant piece on the results of calling copulating homosexuals married in Great Britain shows just how much that novel institution has had to do with regular couples. I will borrow liberally, though it’s worth a full read to comprehend how quickly ostensibly benign moral standards metastasize into totalitarian leftist tumors.
Four years ago, amid much uncertainty, 400 British members of parliament voted to redefine marriage in the United Kingdom.
Then prime minister David Cameron announced that, despite having made no mention of the issue in his party’s pre-election manifesto, it would be MP’s who decided the fate of marriage.
Now, it’s Australia’s turn to choose. There’s one key difference. Unlike in Britain, it will be the people who decide.
Everyone agrees, whether they admit it or not. This is a decision of enormous significance.
Therefore, it seems sensible to analyse the consequences of the potential change, within nations in which redefinition has previously been carried out.
In the United Kingdom, it has become abundantly clear that redefinition has affected many people, across many spheres. At first glance, these spheres appeared distinct from marriage redefinition. However, subsequent changes, have proved that they are entirely intertwined.
What does their pretending to be married have to do with me? The author cites four significant areas. Each of which I’ll describe in capsule below.
Acknowledgement of sex distinctions is becoming as verboten as race. A current government proposal makes official gender designations simply a matter of form filling. A man is a woman if he says he is, which means sex has been shuttled from the ancient realm of objective to the subjective. As a result, terminology such as “ladies and gentlemen” has been scrapped as a permissible salutation in London transport. No external party may presume to know what is a lady or gentleman, since this is now strictly a function of one’s internal dialogue.
But as always with the left, refusal to state 2+2 =7 is accompanied by increasing penalties. At least one university is now marking down students who cling to gender-defined pronouns. It will, of course, get much worse.
Freedom of Religion
Despite initial promises of religious exemption to homosex mandates, the husk of the British church now finds itself moving promptly into the arid social soil of Hate. Both the “Equalities Minister,” a bureaucracy that promises sheer malevolence from its title alone, and the Speaker of the House of Commons have both stated that no one is free until Christians are not. Thus churches will either come to accept their desecration by “gay marriage” or eventually face the wrath of state prosecutors. If American clergy are any example, I doubt God will have much to say in the matter.
Additionally, the inadequacy of one’s enthusiasm for the homosex lifestyle is now cause for additional prohibitions.
This month, Britain’s High Court, ruled that a Pentecostal couple were ineligible (foster) parents. While the court recognised their successful and loving record of adoption, they decreed that above all else: ‘The equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence’.
Thus providing a nurturing home for children weighs less heavily on British law than assuring their future equanimity to anal sex.
Freedom of Speech
The article discusses the now-dreary Western regimen of death threats, doxxing, employment terminations, and shuttered bakeries that flow through every BLT movement like shit through a goose. So what’s gay marriage got to do with you?
The author reflects wistfully.
In retrospect, the silent majority in Britain remained silent for too long. Reflecting on redefinition, Ben Harris-Quinney, Chairman of the Bow Group think tank pondered that:‘Same-sex marriage was promoted in the UK, as an issue of supposed tolerance and equality. What we have seen, is the most unequal and intolerant outcomes of any political issue in recent history’.
‘Tolerance and equity’ always ends with the same principled appeal: Kill the counterrevolutionaries!
The author cites examples from an increasingly draconian BLT narrative pressed into the youngest minds. ‘Gender fluidity’ dogma has been incorporated into primary school curricula while alleged educators reportedly teach children proper masturbation techniques among other old English fundamentals. Schools are sanctioned for “inadequate promotion of homosexuality and gender reassignment” and administrators have denied parents the liberty to shield their children from such learning opportunities.
Such injuries are the eternal predestined result when people who want you off the Earth say: Please give me a tank. I call this tank ‘tolerance.’ Oh look, I just ran over another Western traditionalist. Good thing I’ve got a tank.