Silence is the greatest persecution -Blaise Pascal

Homosexuals’ War On The Language Of Dissent

The term “marriage” is hate speech, or so states the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its ruling on a lawsuit filed in Oakland California District Court accusing the local School Board of restricting free speech in the workplace. The suit, which has now come before the U.S. Supreme court names as defendant D.C. school board President and former Oakland, California City Manager Robert C. Bobb and Joyce Hicks, a city deputy executive director. In dispute is whether it was permissible for the so-called “Good News Employee Association” -an informal employee association formed in part as a response to a similar group organized by homosexual employees of the Oakland School Board- to post messages on a workplace bulletin board soliciting membership in a forum chartered to oppose “all views which seek to redefine the natural family and marriage”. As the Washington Times reports, when several employees asked whether an email from the homosexual group inviting city employees to participate in “National Coming Out Day” was legitimate city business, they received a communique from City Council member Danny Wan, informing them that a “celebration of the gay/lesbian culture and movement” was part of the city’s role to “celebrate diversity.” When these employees formed a group to support family values in the workplace and solicited participation from “people of faith” via a workplace bulletin board, in a manner highly reminiscent of the solicitation in the homosexual group’s email, complaint predictably arose from a lesbian co-worker to the effect that she was made to feel “targeted” and “excluded”, and the flier was subsequently removed by a supervisor because it was claimed to violate the city’s anti-discrimination rules.

According to court documents, employees had posted bulletin announcements on subjects ranging from terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden to local sporting events, yet those had not been removed. However, the faith group’s organizers were informed they could announce the group’s presence on the city’s e-mail system if they removed “verbiage that could be offensive to gay people.” Following the removal of the flier, Hicks issued a memo to city employees. It cited recent incidents where “fliers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature” and warned employees they could be fired for posting such material. The women who organized the faith group and posted the message filed suit in district court, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been abridged by the School Board. The district court predictably disagreed, saying the women had other venues in which to proclaim their message. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in its review of the appeal, said employees’ freedom of speech is secondary to employers’ “legitimate administrative interests.” The women were allowed to submit a new flier, subject to “certain editorial constraints.” It was not revealed in the opinion in what way the homosexual groups’ email advertisement of Coming Out Day served legitimate administrative interests, while the faith groups’ bulletin board flier announcing a group to support the values of many of its employees did not. 

Apart from the obvious disregard for the hallowed liberal values of so-called “equal treatment” and the patent flouting of common fairness, it will be instructive to examine the history of the homosexual lobby’s work of corrosion on the English language and on dissenting speech in general, for this is its central and primary act of revolution. What the court’s ruling exposes is the judicial oligarchy working tirelessly to suppress speech and corrupt the very tools of expression. To outlaw language is the despot’s vain attempt to outlaw inconvenient forms of thought. If you previously believed that “thought control” is the stuff of dystopic science fiction, you’d have been wrong. Thought control is real, and it is here now, occupying a place in the arsenal of the totalitarian therapeutic state -an arsenal directed at the transformation of outrage into compliance, faith into disbelief, dissent into complacency, hope into despair. We address the homosexual lobby directly in this case because of the inordinate degree of influence it has in the courts, especially the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, as well as the multiple organs of culture and commerce. We have only to recall the gradual barring of the terms “homosexual” and “faggot” from polite speech to see this process in action. The process has its beginnings in the consciences of men and women, where the self-suppression of certain forms of communication is undertaken, for a variety of reasons, ranging from the venial desire to appear cultured and “tolerant” and secure one’s place in the social group to which access is desired, to far less benign motives. More subtle work was done in the abstract: “freedom” and “morality” were similarly bowdlerized. “Hate” was made the cognate of dissent. Nor did this linguistic revolution end with the distortion of the existing lexicon. New terms were to be turned out from the jargon factories of the academy, words to confer the ersatz certainty and authority of science. The neologism “homophobia” is one such device, whose power lies in its almost singular ability to take something good and portray it as malevolent. The working of this mechanism is almost miraculously simple, but it is no longer novel. It is tried and true. The linguistic ingenuousness of the defenders of traditional values constrains them from following suit. By way of example of the technic of linguistic revolution, imagine the characteristics of a good husband, and then apply to him the label of “misogynist” and you will begin to see the gears of this verbal difference engine. The transvaluation of values requires a similar transformation in language to be complete. The dutiful provider is now an “exploiter”, the faithful wife is “co-dependent”, and so forth. Homosexuals and their advocates took their cue from the Marxist deconstruction of language. There is an experiment you can conduct to quickly disabuse yourself of any doubts regarding the actuality of this process. Find if you are able a pre-20th century version of Webster’s dictionary. Select a word such as “freedom” or any similar conceptual term. Now copy the definition you see listed there. Now take that definition and compare it to any dictionary you can find (from whatever publisher), and compare that definition with the one obtained from the older dictionary. You will note immediately that the definitions are startlingly divergent -and this is the case even if your comparison is from a dictionary printed in the very early decades of the 20th century. The language was transformed almost overnight, and it was far from accidental. A treatise might be written on the acceleration of linguistic deformation that occurred during the early part of the 20th century. For reasons of brevity, we must move on. 

Imagine now the repulsive rites of homosexuality, and then take that right-minded repulsion or hatred and call it “fear”. Even a child will see that repulsion is no more fear than fear is confidence. Nothing is what it seems in the Neverland of homosexual advocacy. Hate is fear, fear is attraction. At the heart of this, of course, is a perverse psychology, yet one that is nearly unchallenged. The final frontier of homosexual “liberation” is the transformation of notion of “rightness” into social pathology, and the intervention of the therapeutic and clinical state in the vector of social viruses like “hate” -all on behalf of its foot soldiers in the kulturkampf against family, church, and race. But certain terms resist this corrosion of their meaning. Marriage is a term that has proven remarkably resistant to the caustic action of homosexuals and their allies in bellwether cultural, political, and religious institutions. 

What is indisputable is that the underlying intent of homosexual activism is to slowly erode the civil prerogatives of those who oppose them, using the tool of the courts to impose what they cannot win at the ballot box. Diversity of opinion is permitted only so long as it brooks no criticism of homosexual practices. Ideology taking its cue from less “elevated” compulsions, beloved “democracy” is a lover to be abandoned in a moment when lured by the charms of naked power -the power to carve out for themselves a cultural lebensraum, a cordon sanitaire of compulsory approbation in the face of overwhelming public revulsion. The act of seeking to strike terms from the very language permissible in civil discourse (and even in private speech) goes to the heart of what it means to live in a free society, and goes further than mere flirtation with the totalitarian impulses of liberalism. This is the amoral morality of the Marquis De Sade, the transvaluation of values that seeks to “cleanse” society of the instinctual judgments of the conscience, and to replace them with the false conscience engendered by fear. Fear of the shibboleth, fear of social ostracism. For though every healthy-minded man is sickened by homosexuality, almost no now will publicly oppose it. In the sacred privacy of the voting booth, truer sentiments reign. So much for government “by the people”. For the homosexual lobby has long since determined it will not be constrained by such abstractions. It is a movement the embraces realpolitik if ever there was one. If the vote turns against them, then what is left but to forcibly free men from the fetters of their self-delusion through the power of robes and guns? For the homosexual freedom doesn’t really mean freedom from compulsion, since he would use that very freedom awarded to him by the worldly powers to compel men to assent to his debauchery. This is the opposite of freedom, and it is a cynicism that is at home in a lifestyle that has as its raison d’etre the subversion of nature in favor of artificiality and an urbanism of the mind.

In denying the claims of the plaintiffs, the court does render, however incidentally, some welcome illumination, since it exposes unmistakably the unserious character of the homosexual lobby’s insistence that their couplings be considered genuine marriages. To support the striking of such terms from government is to engage in a rhetoric of the absurd. Such semantics cannot, now, be seen to rise above mere sophistry. How could homosexuals object to the term “marriage” if they seek for their couplings to be recognized as themselves marriages? What kind of crass self-contradiction is this? The very kind that blushingly acknowledges failure to convince men that the mere cupidity, the psychological malady that is homosexuality is marriage true and proper. Strike that, no self-respecting homosexual retains the blush response, for that is reserved to innocence. Further still, they cannot convince us that true marriage is yet another hollow, Lockean commercial contract, vocalized with whatever mock solemnity, in order that it confer legitimacy on a relation that is wholly artificial, just as the sex acts between homosexuals are the abortive and malformed mockery of the physical unity that can only occur between natural partners. But beyond the menagerie of language, wrong cannot be made right; it can only be called right.

What is wanted by the homosexual lobby is to end the so called “privileging” of our values over theirs. When unable to popularly redefine marriage to include their repellent unions, when unable to win the psychomachia against the ancient Occidental conscience, they then seek to amputate its very tongue, by striking at the right of dissent. Such is the strange universe of paradox and moral inversion the homosexual lobby inhabits. The staunch defenders of “difference” find themselves in the all too comfortable role of crusaders against real difference –or the kind that matters: difference of opinion. Theirs has ceased to be a movement which even pretends to moral superiority, and now parades openly as a commissariat, a cadre of Soviet-style sanitizers and redactors -dispensers of moral amnesia. The connection with the inconvenient identities of religion, race, and ethnicity are patent here, and insofar as the endogenous values of nativity are warred upon, a race of people, an entire civilization is warred upon. And yet, language can be resilient, and is not always so easily deformed. True deformation takes much time and concerted effort. More time than is easily to be had, since the future that homosexuals and their ideological allies fight is one which will have witnessed the wreck and ruin of Western Civilization. It is a future in which the coming tidal wave of indignation at the erosion of protections for children against homosexual predators will have washed away whatever weak public support there may have been for their agenda. It is a future that will have witnessed the one of the great genocides in history. To kill a culture is to kill a people. There are millions who would rather perish than live in the homosexual utopia of freedom that is not, and difference that is not.

In all of this, one thing is to be celebrated: how some terms are at least a little resistant to bowdlerization. Support for homosexual rights (and for the juridical exclusion of opposition) will always be restricted to a small, elitist camp. Its greatest enemy is the populism it pretends to support, since the reaction of the despised hoi polloi is fairly predictable, especially in certain regions of the country. It is for this reason that they have to capture institutions by the head, because the common man will vote down their revolution every time, if he is sufficiently awakened from his sedate slumber. It’s instinctive. But isn’t that the enemy? Instinct itself? Homosexual advocates lead the way in fighting public referendums on the issues they are concerned with. They know the inevitable result.

Now, what does this homosexual supported ruling say to those of their comrades in Massachusetts who took up residence there in order that their unions be recognized as marriages -that camera fodder that stood in line holding hands, nervously smiling, bathed in the halogen glow of secular sanctimony? Well, Selma, Alabama is apparently still a long way from Provincetown, and the civil saints of the Special Rights Movement do not suffer claimants to their hallowed estate. Fags are finding that the swaying and sweating denizens of New Zion Baptist Church pews can be just as refractory as the “Fundamentalism” they so inexpertly finger as the source of their woes. Their despair of public approval is rich with comic relief. O how desperate they are for a place at the table of the malignant “normalcy” they decry, and how downcast they become when they can’t obtain it. It engenders the elitism and condescending mentality that dominates the movement. I’m certainly no fan of the plebiscite, nor do I have much faith in the wisdom of Joe Sixpack, since he’s grown so very obtuse about racial identity, but there may be a shred of common sense left in him.

Comments:

“...wrong cannot be made right; it can only be called right.”