THE DEADLY CONSTRICTION OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH

When reason fails to argue in your favor, there is always coercion. In The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech, liberal democrat, Kirsten Powers, writes about the Left's methods:

• The illiberal left yearns for a world sanitized of information that offends them. So why not just tune out the views they don’t like? They can’t. They are authoritarians at heart; they know what Americans should think and what information they should consume. So they launch petitions to have particular views censored from newspapers. They try to get columnists fired for expressing the wrong views. The illiberal left has maniacally maneuvered to delegitimize the Fox News Channel, unable to abide the existence of one news network critical of the president. High- ranking White House officials were the face of this effort, telling anyone who would listen that Fox News was “not really a news station” and not “legitimate.” These top government officials were joined in their illiberal campaign by the progressive nonprofit Media Matters for America (MMFA), which enjoys the support of some of the Democratic Party’s top donors. 12 At one point, Media Matters’ CEO David Brock told Politico that the organization’s ninety- person staff and $10 million annual budget was dedicated to the purpose of waging “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” 13 against Fox News. A leaked MMFA memo for liberal donors detailed a strategy to destroy Fox that included plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

• The illiberal left hunts down heretics, dissidents, and run- of- the mill dissenters to not only silence them, but make examples of them for the rest of society. Dissent from liberal orthodoxy is cast as racism, misogyny, bigotry, phobia... Those who oppose same- sex marriage don’t have rational, traditional views about marriage that deserve respect or debate; they are bigots and homophobes. When conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act’s “contraception mandate” it wasn’t due to a differing philosophy about the role of government. No, they were waging a “War on Women.”

Why does Powers term them "illiberal?"

• The illiberal left, on the other hand, believes that people who express ideological, philosophical, or political views that don’t line up with their preferences should be completely silenced. Instead of using persuasion and rhetoric to make a positive case for their causes and views, they work to delegitimize the person making the argument through character assassination, demonization, and dehumanizing tactics. These are the self- appointed overlords— activists, university administrators, journalists, and politicians— who have determined what views are acceptable to express. So, shut up— or else.

Sadly, these Leftists aren't a fringe element. According to Powers, they have great latitude to shape young, idealistic, but naive minds:

• On campuses there are speech codes, so- called “free speech zones,” and a host of “anti- discrimination” policies that discriminate against people who dissent from lefty groupthink. Christian and conservative groups have been denied official university status by student government organizations for holding views not in line with liberal dogma.

We might think that the universities and media have a vested interest in upholding the freedom of speech for all. However, myopically, they are convinced that, by depriving a voice to some, their voice will remain unbridled. 

This is what the proletariat masses, who met Lenin upon his return to Russia in 1917 with enthusiastic cries of "Power to the people; Power to the Soviets" thought. They had been promised that they would be in control and not the Tzars. However, Lenin had other ideas:

• One of the first moves of Lenin’s government was to ban all opposition press. When asked about freedom of speech Lenin answered: “Freedom of speech?! We are not going to commit suicide.” (Russiapedia) 

Powers is certainly not alone in her analysis:

• “This tainting and ostracism of sinners is the secret power of the leftist faith,” wrote David Horowitz in Progressives, Volume II of The Black Book of the American Left. “It is what keeps the faithful in line.” It is “part of a ritual that has become familiar over generations of the left, in which dissidents are excommunicated and consigned to various Siberias for their political deviance. It is a phenomenon normal to religious cults, where purity of heart is maintained through avoiding contact with the unclean.” 

The reaction to Powers’ book by her fellow liberal leftists was predictable. Breitbart reports:

• Powers, a lifelong liberal and supporter of gay marriage, has suffered an avalanche of abuse from her side. She’s called a “bigot,” “homophobe,” “f-ckface,” and more. It is a classic Leftist tactic – take something the person did or said, lie about it, make it into a huge deal, and use it to discredit them. It is also a Leftist tradition to bury any independent thinkers on their side the moment they express disagreement.

How is it that the Left is able to get away with libel? There is little accountability from the media and the universities. Either these institutions are thug-sympathizers or they are afraid to stand up against the thugs. At best, they compromise their integrity and fail the public trust.

The Secret of the Evolution Establishment

Why does evolution remain the unchallenged theory within the university community? Could threat, intimidation, and even outright persecution against any who break ranks with the Darwin-Establishment explain it?

I know that I wouldn’t do this research, so I couldn’t help but publish this list of the “numerous well-documented examples of scientists who have faced persecution and discrimination for disagreeing with Darwinian evolution in just the last few years” assembled by Casey Luskin:

•  In 2005, Smithsonian spokesman Randall Kremer objected to a private screening of the pro-ID film The Privileged Planet because it drew a "philosophical conclusion." The Smithsonian made no complaints when Sagan's original Cosmos in 1980 argued that "The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

• A congressional subcommittee staff investigation found that biologist Richard Sternberg experienced retaliation by his co-workers and superiors at the Smithsonian, including transfer to a hostile supervisor, removal of his name placard from his door, deprivation of workspace, subjection to work requirements not imposed on others, restriction of specimen access, and loss of his keys, because he allowed a pro-ID article to be published in a biology journal. The Congressional staff investigation concluded that the "Smithsonian's top officials permit[ed] the demotion and harassment of [a] scientist skeptical of Darwinian evolution" and "officials explicitly acknowledged in emails their intent to pressure Sternberg to resign because of his role in the publication of the [pro-ID] Meyer paper and his views on evolution."
• In 2009 the state-funded California Science Center (CSC) museum cancelled the contract of a pro-ID group, American Freedom Alliance (AFA), to show a pro-ID film. The lawsuit was settled in August 2011, with the CSC agreeing to pay AFA $110,000 to avoid a public trial. However, documents disclosed during the course of litigation showed that employees of the CSC, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, joined with other LA-area academics to suppress the expression of ID, most egregiously by pressing CSC decision-makers to hastily cancel AFA's event.
• In 2005, over 120 faculty members at Iowa State University (ISU) signed a petition denouncing ID and calling on "all faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science." These efforts were significant not just because they opposed academic freedom by demanding conformity among faculty to reject ID, but because they focused on creating a hostile environment for pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet, who was denied tenure at ISU in 2006 due to his support for ID. Both public and private statements exposed through public records requests revealed that members of ISU's department in physics and astronomy voted against Gonzalez's tenure due to his support for ID.
• In 1993, San Francisco State University biology professor Dean Kenyon was forced to stop teaching introductory biology because he was informing students that scientists had doubts about materialist theories of the origin of life.
• In a similar case five years later, Minnesota high school teacher Rodney LeVake was removed from teaching biology after expressing skepticism about Darwin's theory. LeVake, who holds a master's degree in biology, agreed to teach evolution as required in the district's curriculum, but said he wanted to "accompany that treatment of evolution with an honest look at the difficulties and inconsistencies of the theory."
• Rogert DeHart, a public high school biology teacher in Washington State, was denied the right to have his students read articles from mainstream science publications that made scientific criticisms of certain pieces of evidence typically offered to support Darwinian theory. One of the forbidden articles was written by noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould. Although DeHart complied with this ban, he was later removed from teaching biology.
• In Mississippi, chemistry professor Nancy Bryson was asked by Mississippi University for Women to resign as head of the Division of Science and Mathematics after she gave a lecture to honors students called "Critical Thinking on Evolution." She remarked, "Students at my college got the message very clearly[;] do not ask any questions about Darwinism."
• In 1999, ID theorist William Dembski founded the Polanyi Center at Baylor University to allow scientists and scholars to conduct scientific research into intelligent design. The Center was later shut down largely due to intolerance of ID among Baylor faculty.
• In 2005, the president of the University of Idaho instituted a campus-wide classroom speech-code, where "evolution" was "the only curriculum that is appropriate" for science classes. This was done in retaliation towards a professor at the university, Scott Minnich, who at the time was testifying in favor of intelligent design as an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
• Also in 2005, Cornell's former interim president Hunter Rawlings devoted a State of the University Address "to denounce 'intelligent design,' arguing that it has no place in science classrooms and calling on faculty members in a range of disciplines" to similarly attack ID.
• In 2005, top biology professors at Ohio State University derailed a doctoral student's thesis defense by writing a letter claiming "there are no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution" and therefore the student's teaching about problems with neo-Darwinism was "unethical" and "deliberate miseducation."
• In 2005, pro-ID adjunct biology professor Caroline Crocker lost her job at George Mason University after teaching students about both the evidence for and against evolution in the classroom, and mentioning ID as a possible alternative to Darwinism. While her former employer maintains that it simply chose not to renew her contract, she was specifically told she would be "disciplined" for teaching students about the scientific controversy over evolution.
• In 2007, Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, had established an Evolutionary Informatics Lab at Baylor University to study the ability of Darwinian processes to generate new information using computer simulations and evolutionary algorithms. However, after Dr. Marks was interviewed by ID the Future in 2007, he subsequently received a letter from his dean warning that the website was "associated" with "ID," and he was forced to take the lab's site down and move the lab itself off campus.
• In 2006, a professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the University of Toronto, Laurence A. Moran, stated that a major public research university "should never have admitted" students who support ID, and should "just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students."
• In 2011, a biology professor at the University of Waikato stated that "If, for example, a student were to use examples such as the bacterial flagellum to advance an ID view then they should expect to be marked down"
• Likewise, that same year Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago, stated that "adherence to ID (which, after all, claims to be a nonreligious theory) should be absolute grounds for not hiring a science professor."
• In January 2011, the University of Kentucky (UK) paid over $100,000 to settle astronomer Martin Gaskell's lawsuit claiming that he was wrongfully denied employment for doubting Darwinism. UK faculty admitted that Gaskell was the most qualified applicant for the position, but they hired a much less qualified candidate out of concerns about statements Gaskell had made that were critical of Darwinian evolution.
• In June 2011, the journal Applied Mathematics Letters paid $10,000 and publicly apologized to avoid litigation after it wrongfully withdrew mathematician Granville Sewell's paper critiquing neo-Darwinism.
• In 2009, David Coppedge was demoted and punished for sharing pro-ID videos with co-workers at Jet Propulsion Lab. Later, his employment was terminated.
• In 2012, Springer-Verlag illegally breached a contract to publish the proceedings of an ID-friendly research conference at Cornell University after a pressure campaign was mounted by pro-Darwin activists to have the book scuttled.
• In 2013, Ball State University (BSU) President Jo Ann Gora issued a speech code declaring that "intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses" at BSU, after atheist activists from the Freedom from Religion Foundation charged that a "Boundaries of Science" course taught by a well-liked physics professor (Eric Hedin) was violating the Constitution by favorably discussing intelligent design.
• Also in 2013, atheist activists forced Amarillo College to cancel an intelligent design course after they threatened disruption if it went forward.

Threat, Thugs, and Capitulation

How were Hitler and his National Socialist thugs able to take over Germany? Through intimidation, violence and murder! How were Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Castro able to prevail? Through the same instruments of terror! How is it that Islam is now enjoying the protection of Western media, universities and government despite their many atrocities? How is it that anyone who speaks against the Islamic threat and terror is labeled an “Islamophobe” and silenced? Their willingness to act out violently has made cowards of our Western institutions and has even convinced them that they are performing a righteous act by accommodating to Islam.

How is it that the homosexual agenda has suddenly gained such widespread acceptance, gaining such support that anyone who resists them is termed a “homophobe,” a hater of gays, a denier of human rights? Through intimidation and violence! In fact, I just received a sample of their methods today in the form of two anonymous responses to my blog:

• Oh eat a bag of cock go devour a pound of shit you judgmental homophobic redneck cunt. I hope you sit on a cactus.
  
  
• OH YOU ARE A GIANT DOUCHE FAGGOT YOU ARE A FAGGY QUEENY DOUCHE YOU NEED TO GO FUCK YOURSELF CAUSE NO ONE ELSE TOUCHES YOU!

What did I do to deserve such intimidating messages? Much as the Center for Disease Control, I cited various studies in an essay entitled Homosexuality: the Costs.

Such methods of intimidation are not foreign to the pro-gay community. I began listing some of the many instances of pro-gay intimidation, but I stopped. These few incidents would simply trivialize the extent of their violence. Then I tried to include all the incidents I could find on the web, but I deleted them. There were just too many to read.

However, there is nothing surprising or newsworthy that there have always been thugs and bullies who have resorted to the use of any tactics to get their way. What is more surprising is that our democratic institutions that are supposed to expose intimidation and other forms of criminality have all capitulated, even many on the right.

• Fox Sports Southwest fired football analyst Craig James for supporting traditional marriage. (World, October 5, 2013, 8)

Even more surprising, the Mormons – and they had contributed heavily to the passage of the recently invalidated the 2008 popular vote in favor Propositional 8 in California, limiting marriage to male/female unions – had recently invited a couple to speak in favor of making their church “more welcoming places for our LGBT brothers and sisters”:

• Officially the LDS church says marriage is between a man and a woman and that same-sex relationships are sinful, but the church was a quiet force behind the new Boy Scouts policy to allow into the program homosexual boys. (World, October 5, 2013, 12)

I’m sure that the Scouts always had youth with gay proclivities. However, this ruling opens the door to gay behavior and sets the stage for the anticipated argument:

• The gay youth in the scouts should proportionately be matched with gay scoutmasters.

Meanwhile, the Scouts have already had many problems with sexual abuse. However, what is most shocking is the Mormon capitulation. In the wake of the passage of Prop 8, the pro-gays were able to obtain lists of supporters and harassed them, even desecrating their churches. Instead of challenging this threat, they have conveniently seen the politically correct light.

This reminds me to the advance of Hitler’s National Socialist thugs. Albert Einstein had observed their surprising onslaught:

• Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced.  Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. . . . Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s Campaign for suppressing truth.  I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

There are no longer many lovers of freedom. They have been silenced by the threat of consequences to their careers, their possessions and even their lives, and the thugs have been encouraged by it.

The Slow Death of a Gutless Religion – Secularism

Any criticism of the gay lifestyle is not tolerated by its proponents. They will seek to silence it, even at the cost of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and of religion. One California marriage and family therapist, David Pickup, claims:

• “From talking to gay activists, this is a programmed step toward the complete elimination of all types of reparation therapy [RT]” [to support gays who want to exit the gay lifestyle]. (Salvo, Issue 22, 34)

Pickup refers to the passage of California bill SB 1172, which prohibits juveniles from seeking professional counseling in order to deal with what they regard as a problem -same-sex attraction (SSA).

This bill violates every professional standard and constitutional guarantee. Ironically, there is nothing to prevent a hit-man from seeking professional counseling in order to help him continue undaunted with his profession. Why then has the California legislature turned its back on these standards? Why has it caved-in? Pressure!

Secular establishments fear gay activists. One leading activist wants to go much further than SB 1172. Wayne Besen writes:

• With overwhelming evidence that reparative therapy is a fraud, legal organizations and legislative bodies are finally beginning to focus on cutting off the supply…Reparative therapists should be stripped of their college degrees, expelled from professional associations, and banned from practicing. (Salvo, 32)

Is RT a fraud? How can it be? While some RTs claim to reduce SSA, other RTs merely play a supportive role for those trying to cope with SSA. What’s so wrong with that, especially in light of the many negative costs - including suicide - endemic to the gay lifestyle,?

However, there is much objective evidence – not to mention the anecdotal evidences - that RT actually brings positive results:

• There are two major studies most often cited to support the potential benefits of reparation therapy. One, originally published in book form in 2007, was conducted by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. A follow-up to the study, which appeared in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy in 2011, concluded not only that it was possible to change one’s homosexual orientation, but also that psychological harm was unlikely to result from the effort.  (34)

The Robert Spitzer study was published in 2003 in the Archives of Sexual Behavior:

• After studying efforts on 200 volunteers who had experienced predominantly homosexual attractions for many years before beginning therapy, Spitzer found that, for all subjects, “there was a marked reduction [of homosexual tendencies]…not only on the three measures of overt behavior and sexual orientation self-identification…but also on the seven variables assessing sexual orientation itself.” (34)

However, recently, Spitzer apologized to the gay community for his study. Why the retraction?

• Others have reported that since the time Spitzer first published his study, he has suffered a professional fall from grace and has been vilified by friends, colleagues, and the gay community. Now elderly and suffering from Parkinson’s disease, he has reassessed his findings, perhaps in hope of rehabilitating his reputation among homosexuals. (34)

However, according to Pickup, the Journal would not accept Spitzer’s retraction:

• “The journal that had originally published his study refused to accept his retraction because he offered no new evidence…the findings are still the same.” (34)

Kudos to this journal, but many others are folding under the pressure. Just recently, the University of Texas caved-in and ordered an ethics investigation, at this instigation of gay activists, against their researcher, Mark Regnerus. His study had found that children of gay couples suffered disproportionately in comparison to those of heterosexual couples – a politically incorrect conclusion. Although UT cleared Regnerus of any wrongdoing, this unwarranted investigation provoked fear among others who might want to conduct research in this field.

The militancy and intolerance is intense. A UK homosexual journalist, Patrick Strudwick, wrote,

• We want to root out therapists and psychiatrists who are practicing these [RT] techniques and ultimately bring an end to them through exposing them…The ultimate aim was to prevent religious groups from offering ‘counseling’ which aims to change sexual orientation.” (35)

Strudwick had targeted a Christian therapist of 20 years, dishonestly claiming that he wanted to overcome SSA. Meanwhile, he was secretly recording the sessions and sold the story to a newspaper and reported the Christian to the British Association for Counseling & Psychotherapy (BACP), which pulled her license, even though Strudwick wasn’t a real client. Evidently, the BACP had caved to the pressure of political correctness long ago.

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) caved-in to pressure and declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. Once again, the APA is caving - this time to pedophilia.      

• In the first edition of the DSM-1 [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder – the bible of mental illness], published in 1952, the mental disorder of pedophilia was listed as a “sexual deviation.” DSM-II, published in 1968, maintained the classification. But in 1980, DSM-III listed pedophilia as a “paraphilia,” a new euphemism introduced therein for sexual deviations. This changed the psychiatric understanding of adult-child sex from something that is deviant to something that is different, shifting the sense of meaning toward moral neutrality. From this vantage point, child molestation could arguably be understood, at least as far as the DSM was concerned, as “just another sexual orientation.” Then, in 1994, the diagnostic criteria shifted such that a diagnosis of pedophilia hinged not on a perpetrator’s objective behavior, but on his subjective feelings about the behavior. (Salvo, Issue 22, 12)

This meant that child molestation can now be considered “normal” as long as the pedophile doesn’t feel badly about it. This now opens the door to “pedophilia… [as] an alternative sexuality.”

What will this mean in our society? If the journey to homosexual acceptance and promotion is any indication, it means several things. Talking against pedophilia could then be considered a “hate crime,” and many have lost their jobs and licenses because of this. Pedophiles could then not be discriminated against in hiring, whether as a teacher or a day-care worker. It might also mean that sensitivity training would be introduced into the schools to promote pedophilia as a legitimate sexual alternative. Parents might also loose their right to shield their children from pedophiles and pornographers.

In a clear case of the “cave-ins”:

• The British television broadcaster Channel 4 has cancelled the screening of a controversial documentary about the history of Islam after the presenter [Tom Holland, author, Islam: The Untold Story] was threatened with physical violence.

This means that, even in the West, the activists are in control. Secularists have consistently enabled them to determine policy and procedure. It also means that we should only expect unbalanced news in certain areas. We will only hear the good about Islam. No one will risk saying otherwise. This can only breed cynicism and contempt for our secular gate-keepers and brainwashed, manipulated minds for the citizenry.

What happened to the Great Britain that resisted Hitler? What has happened to the secular West that it can no longer resist threats and the pressures, like a moribund body that can no longer resist any virus? Why have the “cave-ins” become endemic to the West? Why have so many decent people been intimidated into silence, according to their own admissions?

I think that this is revealing of a sickness deep within secularism’s bosom. Secularism lacks courage and vision. It has lost any understanding or appreciation of absolute moral principles, and, of course, is unwilling to sacrifice for its “principles.”

When secularism killed God and His promise of the final reward, secularism killed its own dignity. It condemned itself to bear the identity of a beast – just another animal on the evolutionary gradient. When secularism sold out for pleasure and the fleeting joys of sexuality, it pawned-off its very soul - its resources to stand against injustice and the courage to stand for truth. It has relativized itself away into gutlessness.

Banning Gay-Lifestyle-Change Therapy

My Response to Someone in Favor of Banning this Therapy:

If I believed as you do that that gay-lifestyle-change therapy (GLCT) was so destructive, forbidding it might make far more sense to me, or at least publishing something about the dangers or possible guidelines.

However, much of this kind of therapy is merely supportive of gays trying to leave a lifestyle that is highly self-destructive, according to all of the stats. (Perhaps the reported negative consequences gays have experienced in GLCT were not due to GLCT, but to the dangers inherent in this lifestyle.)

I certainly agree with you that some of our deepest inclinations are difficult or even impossible to change. Some require a miracle. Consequently, maturity is often a matter of learning how to live with our self-destructive impulses – and I certainly have my share – rather than eradicating them. If some therapists have subjected their clients to extreme measures, like shock therapy, to eradicate these impulses, I would certainly join you in questioning their usefulness.

However, I would remind you that extreme measures have been used – and they are still used – in treating depression. However, would you ban ALL therapies for depression because of these aberrations? Certainly not, and no one else suggests this extreme course of action. Why then do we find this extreme reaction in regards to GLCT?

I think that the answer is one of politics, pressure groups, peer-intimidation and political correctness. In this regards, please see: http://mannsword.blogspot.com/2011/03/politically-correct-american.html

Nevertheless, I have met many ex-gays who have been helped with their same-sex attraction (SSA) through counseling. Some even have subsequently married. Some admit that they still struggle with SSA, while others claim that they are no longer troubled by SSA. Should we believe their testimonies? Why not! All of the studies gauging therapeutic success rely upon self-reporting. Why then just call self-reporting about SSA into question? I think that this reflects the bias of those who oppose this form of therapy.