Friday, December 26, 2014

Feminism, Bigotry, and Eliminationist Social Justice

Katherine Cross tries to analyze a couple of demurrals to the demands of Feminism and in particular their attachment to homosexuality and other aberrational behaviors. She lays out the case in fairly straightforward terms. Feminism is at war.

If you view the following from their perspective, that of Marxist New Man, three class warfare, it is not really Feminist bigotry. It is pure social revolution in progress:
"I wrote this week for RH Reality Check about the ways in which these “religious freedom” laws constitute a “crowdsourcing of bigotry”—devolving discriminatory power from the state to individuals, effectively privatizing the reinforcement of prejudice. Rather than passing anti-marriage equality constitutional amendments, we now have the state invigorating the private prejudices of individuals, garlanding them with a protected-status that concomitantly denies LGBTQ citizens that same protection (the recent laws being mooted in Arizona, Kansas, Idaho, Georgia and elsewhere being good examples of such initiatives that were only defeated after an aggressive outcry).
Is it not the prejudice of LGBTQCNOUFLJs that every - EVERY - business must serve them? It is interesting that the Protected Class of Messiah/Victims has no intention of allowing any protection for any class other than their own class, especially not dissenters. They have no interest in religious protection because they are all Atheist and anti-religion anyway. So forcing religious businesses to debauch (watch for this word usage below) themselves is not only fine, it is essential. Not just in the name of tolerance or equality, either. It is in the name of convenience:
The irritating and even cowardly propensity for vague platitudes among those arguing for this debauched and petty form of “religious freedom” is made abundantly clear by these men’s articles. They fail to engage directly and meaningfully with the form of discrimination they are minimizing or defending, at best suggesting that LGBTQ people refused service at one business can take their trade elsewhere.

What this ignores is that this is an unreasonable burden that is not placed on similarly-situated heterosexual people. But above and beyond that, the prejudice in question is inescapably premised on an idea that is neither innocent nor fair: the idea that heterosexual unions are superior to those of queer people."
"Unreasonable burden"? Women seem capable of finding women-only spas; LGBTQONLDFPOUs cannot find secular/Atheist/homosexual business? No, that is not the issue at all. The issue is to punish anyone who does not capitulate to the Victims and their Messiahs legally and severely. The category, "Religious", is automatically othered into the Oppressor Class, and is to be destroyed as far as is possible under current law. As the Messiahs gain more state power, the destruction of the Oppressor Class will be evermore certain, evermore severe, and evermore eliminationist.
" It should trouble us that these “religious freedom” laws are premised on that incredible and unworthy belief. Dougherty and Linker’s suggestions constitute the surrender of our judgement on an altar of abstraction. They deliberately ask us to not think too carefully about the merits of these ideas, whose competition they see as an inherent good that ought to continue in perpetuity—like dialectical materialism without the payoff, one is left to suppose.

They seek to rob us of our ability to morally discern the difference between, say, civil disobedience athwart apartheid and civil disobedience athwart another person’s humanity."
The assertion of "morality" is an Alinskian necessity, and it is quite obvious when it is found in the claims of a worldview without any morals whatsoever, except for the moral imperative of destroying all morality. The paradox which inheres, doubly, within the Lesbian/Feminist fog is of no concern, because rationality is another enemy of the Messiah/Victimhood Classes; it is banished from their presence along with all morality save anti-morality morality.
"Linker wishes us to believe that there is a difference between his Platonic ideal of a bigot (“Someone who considers homosexuality an abomination that should be a criminal offense”) and the kinder, gentler intolerant who “professes to hold no animus towards homosexuals and yet opposes gay marriage because she conceives of marriage… as ‘a religious sacrament with procreative purpose.’” There is, yes, a difference of degree here that matters in our ethical calculus. But there is no difference in kind; both constitute prejudice, neither ought to be enthroned as a sacred right, impervious to public scrutiny."
There are sacred rights ONLY for protected classes, for the Victimhood Class and its Messiahs. It is their right to eliminate the prior religious rights for their own convenience, as was stated above. And that is the "impervious" right of the sexually protected.
"The nub of that belief is that heterosexual practise is endowed with a certain moral superiority. It is loosely analogous to arguing that you have no problem with people of colour as such, but that since you believe marriage is a religious sacrament for the procreative advancement of one’s race, interracial marriage ought to be verboten. If we can see the moral bankruptcy there, we can see it with the argument Linker advances in the name of an ethically limp “tolerance.”"
And here is the essence, or at least part of the essence, of the objective of the homosexual war on civilization: they must be accorded more than moral parity; not just legal rights, but total moral superiority to any individual who objects to their practices. And this moral superiority must be legally coded such that offenders are severely punished for not giving the sexual deviants exactly what they demand. (Sexual deviation is clearly a statistical designation, since at most there are fewer than 5% of the population who are deviating from the heterosexual, biological imperative. I think it is time to quit referring to them as LGBTQENLDHTOHDs, and start referring to them as what they are: sexual deviants). They are creating themselves as a superior class.

Discrimination is not really to be eliminated under the totalitarians; it is reserved for themselves. As moral authorities for the All-New-Moral-Order, they will discriminate at will and willingly. They do it now, discriminating against those who are not one of them. The Other, the Oppressor Class, is to be separated out and destroyed. That is discrimination.
"No Surrender

"What is also ignored is the grand old elephant squat in the room: the fact that same sex marriage is not the be all end all of LGBT rights. Trans people’s healthcare access, rights for the queer undocumented and immigration detainees, protections for the LGBT incarcerated, trans sex workers, and the seropositive, the lack of employment discrimination or housing discrimination protection, the high suicide rate of LGBT people and the ongoing plague of anti-queer bullying in schools… This list does plod dreadfully on, and these are not idle distractions: these are the issues. Even if same sex marriage were legalized in all fifty states tomorrow, we’d still have a very long way to go."
There will be no end to the Sexual Deviant War on civilization. They have drilled the hole in civilization, set the explosives and are running back to the detonator.
"We come at last to the limits of the paradigm of “tolerance” espoused by some of The Week writers. Democracy was only ever a means to an end: freedom. The liberty to use one’s personal power to crib the humanity of others is a corruption of democratic values—as is the bleak moral equivalence that suggests my humanity is of equal standing with another person’s bigotry. And yes, contra Linker’s insinuations about the misuse of the word bigotry, to believe that queer unions are invalid, socially harmful, and unworthy of service is a belief that allows hatred to take root, lending fire to more direct forms of prejudice like hate crimes. I stand by calling such beliefs bigotry."
The license for licentious libertinism is herein couched in the false moral tones of "liberty": no one can deny any action of anyone else because there are no morals and therefore no immoral actions. Kinsey's total spectrum of acceptable behaviors has borne its fruit: legalized anarchy as a moral imperative. Again, the only immorality is to oppose the moral anarchy. Further, as she notes, harboring counter beliefs devolves to hate, and hate is to be criminalized. The Sexual Deviants are already protected from Hate Thought, and should be protected from Hate Beliefs as well. Criminalizing beliefs is next up. Beliefs will be called "BIGOTRY" from now on.
"Liberalism is not relativism.

We do not become more fully human, nor more fully citizens by discriminating—though carefully abstracted democratic rhetoric can be used to justify it, certainly. But when we are specific, when we have the courage of our convictions to name our means and desired ends for what they are, then we can get somewhere."
Not relativistic? There are two Leftist codes of morality: one for the Messiahs and Victimhood Classes (moral anarchy), and an entirely different code for the Others, the Oppressor Class (thought and belief suppression). So the behavior expectations are, actually, fixed but only within the person's class. Hate is a prime example. This entire article smokes with hatred of the Oppressor Class. But that hatred is "justified" since it targets the proper humans, and in fact it is moral because it endeavors to bring salvation to the Victim Class. So self-righteous hatred from the Left is always moral and acceptable; it never, ever, brings any admonishment for its demonization.
"To wit, I have never said that Christians should be stripped of their faith, or their right to practice that faith publicly. As a woman of faith myself, I have only ever extended my hand to share this country with them in sisterhood, not molest them out of their religious beliefs. I do this merely as someone who wants the core of her humanity respected and not placed on the same level as hatred or entitled petulance. I also ask, with some humility: why must discrimination be essential to your definition of humanity? Can your exercise of faith only nourish itself upon the dehumanisation of others? Or is there, perhaps, a larger universe that you are denying yourself?"
This is a self-aggrandizing lie, baldfaced and without any other interpretation. "Some humility"? The arrogance of this entire article is with few peers, and resembles old time Marxist revolutionary tirades, all moral and self-righteously demanding superior status. The Leftist obsession with "discrimination" belies her claim to being a "woman of faith"; there is no religion which decries discrimination against evil, except the religion of political Leftist totalitarianism. She, and Leftists everywhere, use hot terms such as "discrimination" to warp their views away from their lack of actual moral content, so that they might be mistaken for actual moral principles. But the drive to eliminate all moral discrimination in favor of moral anarchy - the real objective - is not a religious premise under any religion. Under the moral anarchy of this particular group of Messiahs (focused on sexual deviants), when extrapolated to the other Messiah Class, social justice terrorists shows the anarchy involved in all "Social Justice" pogroms. The Black Victimhood Class is currently engaged in Kristallnacht type terrorism in order to eliminate systematic justice from interfering with their cultural behaviors (Victimhood Class anarchy).

The divide between the Marxist anarchists desiring ultimate totalitarian control, and those who desire actual respect for personal beliefs is an unbreachable chasm. And neither side wants to cross it, either, because accommodating the other side is fatal. The two concepts cannot live together. And since the AtheoLeftists know that, it is their intent to eradicate the Other, the Oppressor Class, by what ever "means" they can achieve their "ends", as the author admits above.
"Every single issue I named above—from dignity for LGBT prisoners, to a publicly enshrined right to transgender healthcare, to a program that alleviates queer poverty—takes nothing away from anyone else: it adds something to our civic mosaic; something beautiful. What the Christian rightists are actually losing is the benefit of that richer, more colourful society where whole classes of people are not stuck in a death spiral of survival and able to actually live up to their full potential, contributing their distinctiveness to our wider society."
This is the Official Narrative: nothing is lost by agreeing to the suppression of thought and belief under Hate Crime Law persecution of the Oppressor Class. And it is necessary in order to protect those poor Victims who are "stuck in a death spiral" caused by not enabling the legal protection of moral anarchy. If this seems too "over the top", refer again to the logo at the top of her post (and all Feministing posts): a naked woman giving the world the finger.

No comments: