Sunday, April 5, 2015

From "Civil Rights" to Cultural Totalitarianism





The public memory of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement has been shaped by iconic images of state-licensed violence – peaceful protesters being beaten and otherwise abused by police for exercising the right to seek redress of grievances. The civil rights movement began as an effort to remove government impediments to individual liberty. By 1964 it had become a concerted effort to subject all private functions to government scrutiny and regimentation.

According to the custodians of acceptable opinion, the campaign to compel acceptance of same-sex marriage is the legitimate heir to the Civil Rights movement. The symbolic image of the contemporary movement could be a photograph of a shell-shocked Crystal O’Connor, manager of the family owned Memories Pizza restaurant in Walkerton, Indiana, after the business became the focal point of an orchestrated campaign of mass vilification.

Her offense was to speak favorably of Indiana’s recently enacted – and hastily modified – religious freedom act. The advertised purpose of that measure was to protect the rights of business owners to decline commercial opportunities that would require them to compromise their values. 

In response to a contrived question by a TV reporter seeking to engineer a controversy, O’Connor said that her company would decline an invitation to cater a same-sex wedding. She also made a point of saying that the store would accept paying customers of all varieties – but this distinction is too subtle for people in the throes of collectivist pseudo-outrage.

O’Connor and her family, who had never injured a living soul or expressed any intention to do so, underwent a baptism in bile and were ritually execrated as proponents of “hate.” 

Lying with a caption, or TV "news" as target-spotting for the PC police.

Thankfully, a counter-movement quickly coalesced to raise funds for the besieged – and thoroughly befuddled – Christian business owners, who had no agenda apart from tending to their customers. They hadn’t gotten the message that their business, as a “public accommodation,” was not theirs to operate as they see fit.

Many businesses still display a sign asserting their right to discriminate, which is an indispensable element of property rights: “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which deals with “public accommodations,” was designed to nullify that right.

In announcing his opposition to the Act, Senator Barry Goldwater emphasized the latent totalitarianism of that provision:

“To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill will require the creation of a Federal police force of mammoth proportions. It also bids fair to result in the development of an 'informer' psychology in great areas of our national life - neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so.”

“These, the Federal police force and an 'informer' psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society,” concluded Goldwater, whose peroration proved to be prophetic.

The nation-wide convulsion of collectivist rage triggered by enactment of the Indiana religious freedom act illustrated that “civil rights,” as currently defined, requires the immediate punishment of any business owner who exercises the right to refrain from commerce.  Yes, self-styled proponents of “tolerance” can succumb to the temptations of punitive populism, just like their counterparts on the Right.


An even more compelling illustration of the totalitarian mindset that typifies what is now called “civil rights” was offered by Idaho’s HB 2, more commonly known as the “Add the Words” bill. If it had been enacted by the state legislature, HB 2 would have added “sexual orientation” of various kinds to the state’s Human Rights Act as a protected category with regard to discrimination in employment and “public accommodations.” It also would have explicitly criminalized – perhaps for the first time anywhere in the Soyuz – the act of reserving one’s right to refuse service.

Section 67-5909 (5) (b) of the legislation would have made it a “prohibited act” for “a person” to “print, circulate, post, or mail or otherwise cause to be published a statement, advertisement, or sign which indicates that the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from, or denied an individual or that an individual’s patronage of or presence at a place of public accommodation is objectionable, unwelcome, unacceptable, or undesirable.”

If HB 2 or a future measure employing the same language were to be enacted, a business owner who posted the “right to refuse” sign could not only be sued, but dragged away from his property in handcuffs. A critic of the measure could likewise find himself being prosecuted for publishing a letter to the editor, a Facebook post, or a blog comment urging business owners to exercise the right of refusal.

Punishing the peaceful expression of such opinions would be justified, according to the civil rights commissariat, because government has a “compelling interest” in preventing discrimination – even at the expense of individual liberty.

From IDIC to "who/whom": George Takei.
The incantation “compelling government interest” is a useful illustration of the fact that the lexicon of federal law enforcement is an inexhaustible, self-replenishing reservoir of deceit. 

Most people exposed to this masterpiece of semantic engineering hear what its designers intended – a claim that the government is compelled to do something – rather than what it actually means – that the government is claiming the authority to compel individuals to do something. 

This term of art litters court orders and bureaucratic edicts through which our rulers impose economic and cultural alterations that are intended to remold society nearer to their hearts’ desire.

As an abstract fiction without body, parts, or passions, the state cannot have a legitimate “interest” in anything. Indulging, for a moment, the contrary view, the state’s interest in self-preservation would always dictate the expansion of power, and the corresponding curtailment of liberty. This shouldn’t be considered surprising once it’s understood that the “compelling state interest” doctrine had its origins in the Supreme Court’s 1944 decision Korematsu v. United States – which upheld the mass internment, in military custody, of Japanese-Americans who had broken no law.


Fred Korematsu had committed no crime apart from defying an edict that expropriated him – through race-specific banishment from a “military exclusion zone” that encompassed his property. 

Clothing the sentiment of “sucks to be you” in the rarefied language of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court upheld Korematsu’s federal conviction as an exercise of vital wartime powers by “properly constituted military authorities” with a congressional mandate. The Warren Court would later redeploy that wartime doctrine to facilitate the federal government’s domestic war against “discrimination.”
 
The Japanese relocation camps were filled with people whose homes, farms, personal effects, businesses, and individual liberty had been taken from them by people acting in the name of what would later be called a “compelling government interest.”

Among the innocent people who suffered this inexcusable mistreatment was the family of a young Japanese-American named George Takei, who would later become universally beloved for his portrayal of the heroic helmsman Hikaru Sulu of the Starship Enterprise.


More recently, Mr. Takei has become one of the most prominent supporters of the ongoing effort to compel acceptance of gay marriage through both social pressure and government coercion. Last January 30, Mr. Takei delivered the keynote address during the 5th Annual Fred T. Korematsu Day observance, most likely ignorant of the fact that he’s promoting the same evil doctrine that led to his childhood dispossession. 


We deeply appreciate the generous help so many of you have provided. Thank you so much!






Dum spiro, pugno!  

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you also hold that corporations, which also have neither body, parts nor passions, can have no interest in whether or not their employees use birth control under a health plan provided by said entity? Do you also contend that a corporation has no right of free speech in the context of the holding that money is free speech instead of money is property? Can a corporation have an interest in anything except making money?

William N. Grigg said...

Do you also hold that corporations, which also have neither body, parts nor passions, can have no interest in whether or not their employees use birth control under a health plan provided by said entity?

A corporation can choose to provide that benefit, or an employee can find another employer who provides it. What is morally impermissible is for the fictive entity called the government to compel employers to provide it -- unless we subscribe to Mussolini's model, in which property is privately held but subject to intimate regulation by the government.

In the interests of clarity: Yes, this means that Ginsburg's position in the Hobby Lobby case was, in a specific and undeniable sense, fascist.

Do you also contend that a corporation has no right of free speech in the context of the holding that money is free speech instead of money is property?

That right inheres in individuals, including those who form corporations. The point isn't that corporations have a right to free speech, but rather that government has no legitimate authority to regulate "corporate" speech.

Once again you're examining the wrong end of the proposition. We should limit what government does, rather than what citizens do to influence government policy. Rather than limiting "corporate money" in electoral politics, we should immediately discontinue all corporate welfare, in the form of subsidies.

Can a corporation have an interest in anything except making money?

All businessmen and property owners have a legitimate interest in protecting what they have acquired through inheritance or honest commerce from those who would take it through government-facilitated plunder.

Government, on the other hand, is interested only in the exercise of power at the expense of property rights.

Making money through honest commerce is an altogether commendable undertaking. Stealing it through taxation and regulation is an entirely contemptible enterprise.

Unless wedded to government (something Adam Smith, inter alia, warned about centuries ago), corporations have no ability to compel me to do anything, or take anything from me.

William N. Grigg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kirk said...

it is the right of a business owner to serve, or not serve, whomever they please. it is THEIR business.

on the one hand, it is foolish for a business owner to deny service to entire segments of the population, even though it is his right to do so, because to do so is to limit one's business growth and, in the end, limit one's income.

on the other hand, a business owner OWNS the business and can operate that business in any way desired, via property rights, with no involvement of any agency of any govt. this includes the right to refuse to serve anyone the business owner wants to include in the list of those who are to be denied.

all the imbroglios involving 'discrimination' have as their primary goal the destruction of property rights. that was clearly indicated by the current fascist in charge when he uttered the anti property rights slogan '...you didn't build that'.

we have come so far from our roots as a nation of free men that most no longer even recognize that which made this nation the greatest country on earth: property rights guarded by the rule of law. the former is under attack daily and the latter no longer exists.

as more of our rights are replaced by privileges, true freedom disappears and soft slavery ensues. the real questions are why do we tolerate 'soft slavery' and how long will the slavery remain 'soft'?

Paul Bonneau said...

I find it amazing that people take it for granted those in government care about discrimination. This is like saying that government cares about education. Yes, yes, the propaganda tells us both of these things are true, but all one has to do is examine the actions. Government, far from caring about discrimination, does not give a rat's ass about it - or worse, enhances it by picking winners and losers, in order to "divide and conquer". Likewise, education was the last thing in mind when the government schools were set up.

No doubt this will seem nonsensical to some, but after a lifetime of observation, there can be no other conclusions about it. Government is not there for us, folks. Never was, never will be. Government is for two things: plunder, and the exercise of power. Get out of your mind that it might have any other purpose.

Cedric Ward said...

kirk...
"we have come so far from our roots as a nation of free men that most no longer even recognize that which made this nation the greatest country on earth: property rights guarded by the rule of law."

Tell that to the original native inhabitants of these lands and listen to what they have to say about 'property rights being guarded'!

By whose law?

http://goldtradercommentsaugust2010.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Outstanding article. The gay rights movmement sure has come a long way since a decade or two ago when they claimed they only wanted to be left alone, haven't they?

kirk said...

to Cedric Ward:

"Tell that to the original native inhabitants..." to which i might add the blacks, irish, italians, poles, other europeans, asians, latinos, etc., for all have been treated badly at some point after their arrival.

the point of my note is that only when private property rights are respected by the rule of law can a nation experience progress.

denial of private property rights to some does NOT negate the fact that only when private property rights are respected and protected by the rule of law can progress take place.



Anonymous said...

Let's be honest: This whole gay wedding cake business is NOT about discrimination....it's about the LGBT community trying to force the rest of society to view their lifestyle as "normal" and "mainstream". They want,.......no....many seem to have some sort of deep-seeded psychological need....to be accepted. Instead of just manning up and saying (as many claim to have done when they came out of the closet), "This is who I am and everyone else can **** off if they don't like it!".....they desperately seek societal acceptance....which is rather ironic when you really stop and think about it.

Anonymous said...

The El-Bigots don't want to be "left alone" or "accepted" as normal or mainstream.

No. Only enthusiastic celebration/subsidy/superiority will be enough (for now). The current activist push is for the mainstreaming of "recruiting" new individuals from the "breeder" classes of society. As with Islam, Sodomites can't get your children young enough.

Aggressive discrimination and use of traditional moral values (shunning) is among the few responses that do work against evil.

pdxr13

liberranter said...

More recently, Mr. Takei has become one of the most prominent supporters of the ongoing effort to compel acceptance of gay marriage through both social pressure and government coercion. Last January 30, Mr. Takei delivered the keynote address during the 5th Annual Fred T. Korematsu Day observance, most likely ignorant of the fact that he’s promoting the same evil doctrine that led to his childhood dispossession.


It is sadly typical of both the hard left and the hard right to see "rights" in isolation, as well as to be blind to cause and effect. If one were to bring the above quoted observation to Mr. Takei's attention, the response would no doubt be brainstemmed denial, followed by misplaced outrage and ad hominem assault. Ideology truly does blind people to the reality of their own existence.

Jim O'Connor said...

Will, you rock.

Your writing and podcasts have an almost prophetic effect on me -- I'm filled with dread and hope.

Best to you, Brother.

Jim

Anonymous said...

"That right inheres in individuals, including those who form corporations. The point isn't that corporations have a right to free speech, but rather that government has no legitimate authority to regulate "corporate" speech."

While I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your essay, there is a legal problem here. Corporations are legal fictions-- they cannot exist outside the law. As creatures of law, they cannot have rights-- they can only have legally-defined privileges. They can also be subject to restrictions. That is the leverage the State has over the corporation.

The solution here is to abjure the corporate legal form when starting a business. Open it as a sole proprietorship, or as a partnership. You lose the privilege of limited liability, but you get back your rights as a sovereign individual.