Not many atheists were killed and tortured in the Spanish Inquisition. Loads of heretics were, however.
I had the pleasure of returning this weekend from a conference where we talked about human rights to discovering that Baltimore is on the way to getting the Ferguson treatment and the news that yet another establishment is getting taken to task on the issue of homosexuality. But this last has a twist. Instead of it being a case where an opponent of gay marriage refused to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, it was an advocate for gay marriage being berated for providing services to an opponent of gay marriage. I really didn’t want to write any further on the utter and complete hypocrisy of the gay agenda, but this was just too rich to overlook.
Before I get to the part that I thought was most interesting and telling about this incident, let me first address the most glaring aspect of the hypocrisy. So, these two gay men hosted a gathering for Ted Cruz, and for this, the gay community is livid. Here is their Boycott Facebook page. Now, it is perfectly obvious that if it is discrimination to not serve a gay person because he is gay, it would be discrimination to not serve an (allegedly) anti-gay person because he is (allegedly) anti-gay. I’m talking from the viewpoint of the Constitution and the law. But in the minds of the gay advocates, their discrimination is warranted and therefore justified. From the Facebook page: “Treating people as less than human does not equal a ‘difference of opinion.’ Therein lies your logical misstep.“
The writer is referring more to the gay couple that owned the hotel than to Ted Cruz, by the way.
If cogent argumentation mattered, we could from this comment dispense with this idea that all discrimination is bad, and not only that, but some discrimination is good: eg., if someone is treating another person as less than human. Their grounds for ‘discrimination’: good. My grounds for ‘discrimination’: bad. Fine; but that is not how the propaganda is framed. The propaganda is framed as “All discrimination is bad!” But, of course, logic really has nothing to do with this. The double-talk has been noted by many others already. But is anyone going to mention the obvious: Ted Cruz openly associating with gay people and availing himself of his services is prima facie evidence that he is not against gay people, in as much as they are gay.
A KKK grand dragon would not step inside a black person’s establishment (except to burn it down). There is a genuine distinction to be found here, but it is doubtful that any gay activist would comprehend it, so I shan’t dwell on it. Instead, let me say this–and this is directed specifically to those who are against gay marriage–
We are not dealing with rational people. They literally will burn down the country to get what they want, and they will sincerely believe that this is entirely justified. We are quickly coming to the point where it will be necessary to act purely in the interests of self-defense. In short, war is on the horizon. To prevent the worst manifestations of war–that is, to keep it a cold war rather than a hot war–it is time to start considering bolder measures. If the gays are literally torturing their own (by the liberal’s definition of torture), we’ve reached a new low, a plateau, if you will, but inversely. Now that this plateau has been reached, society is primed so that a gay-owned establishment will be loathe to serve someone who is known to be against gay marriage. When this happens, it will be necessary to be ready. We need to fight fire with fire: sue the establishment for refusing to provide the service. Sue their friends, sue their mother, sue their attorneys, sue their consultants. Make gay advocates pay a high price for their hypocrisy. Right now, they are living in the land of make believe where they have society’s good will, but society has not yet been confronted with the implications of what it means to live in a society governed by the Gay Inquisitors.
The purpose of such an effort would not be to exact revenge, but to move beyond the ‘logical’ to the ’empirical’, and this in the hopes that they’ll wake up to the dangers of acting the way they act. They are hypocrites, but they don’t know it. Their actions are tyrannical, but they are oblivious. They believe they are acting in the spirit of democracy, but in fact it is anti-human and borderline fascist. They are just the latest manifestation of Liberal philosophies and policies, which is at every point just one degree closer to slavery. I don’t use the word ‘slavery’ as a metaphor. I mean actual, literal, outright slavery.
This whole story reminds me of a warning I penned, here:
Obviously, actual prosecution and incarceration have become incrementally closer. Probably, people other than Christians will ultimately be made to suffer, and probably, gays themselves will someday find themselves on the wrong side of an issue, and be made to suffer similarly, on account of precedent that they helped establish.
It is not because liberals aren’t sincere. It is precisely because they are sincere that they will not stop. They are bound only by their own intentions, which they deem always to be saintly–like the Inquisitors. The only thing that keeps them in check are the checks and balances provided by powerful instruments like the Constitution, some fading memories of past atrocities, and their own consciences, steadily undermined by a thoroughly relativistic age. Of all of these, it is the decimation of the Constitution that poses the most serious and immediate threat.
The Constitution represents a new way in human history of living together. It transcended ‘might makes right’ and established not just a system of checks and balances, but an attitude whereby people would seek to make changes through legal measures such as legislation by their elected representatives rather than–and this is important–sneaking into their opponents village and slaying them while they sleep. People have been willing to put up with a lot of things that they consider to be CRAP, which in past times people literally would have murdered each other over, on the understanding that society is better off if we settle our problems through civil institutions. That way, you don’t have to worry about being murdered in your sleep.
But it is precisely this arrangement that is under fire. Moreover, gay advocates themselves cannot even see what they are doing. It is not even so much that they are willing to burn down the Republic to get what they want, but that they will do so, without even knowing they are doing so.
People have to be able to live with the fact that there are people in society who have viewpoints that they find detestable; this is real tolerance. This was the miracle that the Constitution wrought: people with strong, and contradictory opinions not murdering each other in the sleep, even as they knew the other person had strong, contradictory opinions. The liberal mindset believes (without being able to put it into words) that ‘tolerance’ is everyone having the same, orthodox viewpoint: theirs. The mere existence of disagreement constitutes intolerance, in their viewpoint, thus in the name of tolerance, all must believe as they do.
That’s why the this gay couple must be made to pay–by the gay community. It is why Christians suffered at the hands of Christian inquisitors in Spain many hundreds of years ago. It is why the atheists of the French Revolution murdered Christians and other dissenters. It is why ISIS is cutting off the heads of men, women, and children. It is all of a piece, and what they all have in common are rock bottom realities about human nature–things that are true about humans, whether one likes it or not. You see, most of the horrors perpetuated by men on men over the centuries were carried out by good, well meaning individuals who thought they were acting on noble principles. You know, like, “Treating people as less than human does not equal a ‘difference of opinion.'”
It is precisely because of this clear, present and enduring danger that the first people to make for the New World were Christians fleeing Christians. And it was not accidental, either, that these same sought to break the cycle by establishing a system in which real tolerance was allowed to flourish. The gay community itself is now getting its first taste of their own medicine, their first glimpse into what will happen to them, by their own, if they win their cause by burning down the Republic.
Personally, I believe that we will see many more such travesties carried out on gays by gays, of an increasingly serious sort, before they come to grips with what they have done. It is not inevitable that, if this point is reached, that our Republic is salvageable. It is just as likely that things will be so far gone by that point that there will only be gulags and barbed wire.
People really don’t think that this sort of thing can happen, just like people really didn’t think that anything evil could come from eugenics. They live as though the purges of Pol Pot and the ovens of Auschwitz and the beheadings of ISIS all happened centuries ago, back when they used to do inquisitions. They live as though progress is inevitable and irreversible. They live as though Progress is an infallible doctrine, for which it is perfectly justifiable to unleash oppression to enforce. But none of that is true.
It is not the bad men we need to be most afraid of, but the good men. It was to keep the good men in check that the Constitution was created. Indeed, it was good men that wrote the Constitution, knowing very well that it was the good men that we need to be most concerned about. The reason why liberals have progressively undermined the Constitution and the Republic is because they have forgotten, or do not agree with, or aren’t even aware of the possibility that good men–like themselves–could commit literal, real, atrocities.
And they are quite wrong.
A point that sane and sensible gay people will now become alert to thanks to the fate of Ian Reisner and Mati Weiderpass. But we are quickly approaching a time where such a realization will come too late to matter. Mr. Reisner and Weiderpass should not back down. They should stand up to their Inquisitors, while they still can.
I mentioned above that those against gay marriage need to start thinking in terms of ‘self-defense’ but I am not hopeful that that or anything will have any good effect. Just as it was Christians who recoiled at horrors inflicted by other Christians who established parameters for facilitating genuine liberty in the U.S. Constitution, it may very well have to be liberal heretics who will have to pay the price, perhaps even in blood, who then call for a return to those same principles.
Perhaps we have now come to a point where we can say that the next Republic, if there is to be one, will be built by gay advocates.
We may hope this is not only because the statists will have gunned down everyone else.
Hey, a man can hope, right?
For further reading: