To be consistent “neutral values” proponents must not criticize anybody. The emphasis on “all,” and “anyone else” in the above quotation from Wattleton's article is mine. It is here that I want to start. In particular as part of the “all” and the “anyone else, ”I want the right to own my beliefs, and I do not want the the advocates of the irrational position of moral neutrality to inflict their values either on me, or on North American culture. Where they do so, and have done they are, in Wattleton's own words, being tyrannical, unfair, un-American, and if I may add un-Canadian. So have they done this, and are they even now doing so? Here is the inside scoop from former gay rights advocate Charlene Cothran. In the “about us” statement on her Venus magazine web page she says "The gay agenda has spent many years and millions of dollars on reshaping the way children think about homosexuality." If this is not trying to “inflict their values on” our children, our most vulnerable members of out society, then I don't know what is!
If the true feelings and beliefs of “neutral values” advocates we were that “We must not impose our views on others,” then there would be no criticism of traditional values, because any criticism would be (and is) rightly interpreted as “selling, pushing, or otherwise forcing” the pet values of “neutral values” advocates on those of us who disagree. So to be consistent “neutral values” proponents must not criticize anybody, least of all those who hold traditional values. And since they clearly do, and are imposing their values on us I can only conclude that the motivation lies elsewhere than as stated.
The militant origins of Political correctness. As I have said earlier there have certainly been injustices against gays in the past, but we must not all be tarred with same brush. In the same way I don't believe all those who currently hold to "neutral values" are militant (though I do believe they/you are deceived). In particular there are many things that went on behind the scenes that is not generally known. For example the widespread acceptance of the illogical position of moral neutrality, is not something that spontaneously developed in response to the view of the then moral majority. It was imposed on us by the highly organized persistent multimillion dollar propaganda campaign of a very small militant minority. This fact is well documented for example in the eye opening book “The marketing of Evil” by David Kupelian. Charlene Cothran mentioned above describes herself before conversion as having spent 29 years of her life as “an aggressive, creative and strategic supporter of gay and lesbian issues”. She was one of this militant minority. You do not need to take my word for all of this, check it out for yourself.
In a propaganda war, the one with the power to shut the other side up wins. It is also very clear to me that the proponents of the “neutral values” propaganda have the upper hand. One Canadian professor wrote recently that in this politically correct – all views are equal climate - he was unable to get students to agree that non-consenting female genital mutilation is wrong. Where are our heads? I can guarantee you that if that was happening to your sister or your daughter, you would quickly change your tune, but I digress. But speaking of Professors, the point I want to make is can be easily illustrated by Professor/Student relationships. Consider this as a practical matter, if you want to get straight A's you would be well advised to adopt the view of your Professor, even if you don't agree. I don't want to tar all Professors with the same brush, but I know far too many for whom you would have to submit a far superior essay that disagreed with his or her view, than if you submitted one that agreed with him or her! I know this because I was a student too! What is the difference between this and “Power comes through the barrel of a gun?” And if you hold a values neutral position you have no grounds whatsoever to say that this is wrong! Perhaps Mao was a good guy, we just didn't understand his values? As the heading says in a propaganda war the one with the power wins! Hitler knew this and he used his propaganda machine and slur tactics to vilify the Jews, he then used fear and intimidation to shut down any and all opposition. The tactics of a propaganda war have not changed.
Repressive “neutral values” legislation. And just who has the power in the current Politically correct universe in which we live? Consider again the rational of “values neutral” position that “We must be allowed to mould our lives, not at the arbitrary command of church or state.” My example is not the church, but it is the state. In the political football game that passes as politics there is, at the time of writing a Bill (California Senate Bill 1172) currently before the California Senate. Opponents of this legislation (with whom I happen to agree) describe SB 1172 as a first-of-its-kind legislative effort to usurp the role of the professional mental-health associations, to ban change-oriented psychological care to minors. If this is not a legislative attempt to impose one point of view on another, again I don't know what is. In many ways, the jury is still out on the debate behind the question “Is change possible.” Meanwhile, one of the things political correctness wants to shout down is the fact that many have changed or are in the process of change (Google NARTH)! This bill is in fact the tip of the iceberg, as (verifiable) story after story emerges of professionals being dismissed, and graduate students being denied entrance to programs of study, simply because they do not hold the politically correct doctrine on this issue. Furthermore there are political moves to have any voiced desire to change sexual orientation classified as hate speech. And all of this is politically motivated, it is not based on indisputable evidence from science. This being the case, how is it not the “tyranny of selling, pushing and forcing one's own pet values”on those who disagree?
The rhetoric is powerful but it is not honest. How can we say that simply expressing an opinion is hate? When did we arrive at the conclusion that saying “I was wrong” is hate speech? If I express my opinion that taking things that don't belong to me is wrong, am I necessarily hating thieves” I used the example earlier of a parent telling her child that it is wrong to take something that does not belong to him. While it is very clear that disagreement and hate can coexist, so can disagreement and love (as is the case of most parents correcting their child). If disagreement can be spoken to a child in love why would it not be possible in an adult. Again this is not to say that things have not been spoken in judgmental hate, but it seems to me that the militants on both sides are guilty on this one! Or to put it another way we need to ask "exactly who is hating who here?"
The strategy includes jamming (shouting down the opposition). In David Kupelian's already mentioned book, he documents the beginning of the deliberate launching of the propaganda war that one part of their strategy is jamming. The idea is to prevent any and all debate on the issues, and this can be accomplished by ridicule, intimidation and loud and disruptive protests. The power of this technique was was aptly demonstrated recently at a local church here in my home town. A well known speaker had been invited to speak, and the meeting was invaded by a group of gay activists who made so much noise in the meeting, that the organizers had no choice but to cancel the meeting. There was of course no medial outrage at this. But I wonder what would happen if a group of Christians invaded a gay conference and did the same thing. I don't really think I need to tell you, do I?
Conclusion. What shall we say to all this? In the last post I demonstrated that “values neutral” position is very far from being neutral, is impossible to live out in a practical and consistent way, and in the end nobody would even want to.” In this post I have added to this that its militant advocates done the exact opposite of what they preach. In particular they have shown themselves to be repressive, insensitive, intolerant and judgmental, and have done everything in their power to make sure any defence of traditional values is not heard. You might even say they have an “evangelical zeal” for these things. Let me stress again, that such things as “gay bashing” and violence against gays is very, very wrong. It is the militants on both sides that I have the greatest difficulty with. And I do not believe that all gays, or all who hold to “neutral values” are in the militant camp. Similarly not all on the side of traditional values are fanatics. We must not tar each other all with the same brush.
But what is very clear to me, as David Kupelian's book and Charlene Cothran's testimony (and others) clearly reveal, is that from it's conception the militant highly organized and heavily financially backed campaign to change the minds our this culture, never had any other intention than “selling, pushing, legislating and/or otherwise forcing their own pet values” on the culture. This is not only hypocritical, it is to use one of Faye Wattleton's words, tyrannical.
No comments:
Post a Comment