new

[Blount cites the white supremacist National Policy Institute for the commentary in this piece.]

Donald Sterling and the Slippery Slope Into Totalitarianism

The liberal-agenda–driven spectacle that is the “conservative” wing of the establishment news media has degenerated into a pack of vicious dogs ripping some previously unknown sap limb from limb for having said something unflattering about blacks in a private conversation. The phoniest of the “right-wing” punditocracy, Sean Hannity, actually stopped denouncing the allegedly racist Cliven Bundy long enough to exclusively devote the first third of his television program last night to sanctimonious demands for Los Angeles Clippers’ owner Donald Sterling’s head on a stake. Even people you might be tempted to respect have joined in. For example, last night Mark Levin brayed in unison with irresponsible race arsonists like Al Sharpton and Barack Obama that Sterling’s private remarks are an intolerable outrage.

No one will defend Sterling. But no one should have to. What people should defend is his right to say whatever the hell he wants, regardless of whether it is deemed to be correct by the authorities.

Remember when people could voice their opinions in private conversations without the risk of being ripped to pieces by the rabid jackals comprising the media? When people would respond even to the most obnoxious statements by saying, “It’s a free country; you’re free to your opinion” or even, “While I disagree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it”? We were a far better people then than we are now.

Sterling appears to be an easily dislikable guy — a far better candidate for the liberal media’s Two Minutes Hate than Cliven Bundy. They destroyed Bundy — who actually doesn’t even have a hostile view toward politically sacred blacks — because he was becoming dangerous to them by representing resistance to Big Government. Sterling is more a target of convenience. But not even Sterling is the ideal villain:

Sterling is a multi-millionaire who lives in Los Angeles and owns a professional basketball team in arguably America’s most multicultural city. He also happens to be Jewish (he was born Donald Tokowitz), has a mulatto girlfriend, earned a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for the millions of dollars he’s given them, and the only political candidates he has donated to have been Democrats.

Not exactly the résumé the media was looking for. But Sterling will do fine, because who he really is doesn’t matter. His thought crime completely defines him in the public eye.

They are tearing him down simply to make an example. Say anything politically incorrect, even in private, and you too could be fed to the piranhas. If you want to survive in a totalitarian culture like this is becoming, you had better learn not even to think anything politically incorrect.

. . . .

For all the lockstep sanctimonious sputtering from everyone on TV and radio, this story is not about race. It is about freedom and its opposite, coerced ideological homogeneity.

At this point the stampeded cattle comprising the American public will probably agree that anyone who does not want his mistress hanging out with blacks is so awful that he should be burned at the stake. But if the thought police are successful at immolating Sterling, next time it might not be about race. Next time the thought criminal will be someone who said something not currently politically fashionable about homosexuals — and/or about the Bible. Soon it could be a remark expressing doubts about the dangers of global warming that turns someone into Emmanuel Goldstein. If we continue down this road, within a few years, criticism of government figures could bring out the lynch mob.

Like Da Vinci said, it is easier to resist at the beginning than it is at the end. Our slide into totalitarianism has to be stopped right here. The first step is to call out those participating in the hysterical denunciations of Sterling for what they are: Brownshirts.

[Emphasis added.]

Gary Sconce and the Liberal War on Choice

The recent liberal obsession with promoting transsexuals is not about disfigured sexuality, and far less about “intolerance”; it is about attacking the mindset that makes us capable of exercising free will. For example, take a characteristically obsequious piece in the local media on a teacher in Oakhurst, California who is subjecting himself (and his students) to a sex change:

After spring break, 24-year Yosemite High School science and multimedia teacher Gary Sconce will return to teach as [his] true self, [he] says: Karen Adell Scot.

The 56-year-old husband, father and award-winning teacher came out to family in April that since early childhood, [he]'s felt like a female trapped in a male body. Since then, Sconce has been undergoing hormone replacement therapy and transitioning into Scot.

Sconce calls the person he will pretend to be after he has finished getting medically transfigured into a horrific parody of a woman his “authentic self.” In the progressive funhouse, words mean their opposite.

A thought criminal made this astute observation in a letter to the editor of the Sierra Star:

“I see this as an assault on the minds and morals of our children. It blurs the lines of what is right and wrong.”

The word “assault” is well chosen. Sconce is obviously a very troubled guy; the worst you can accuse him of is a solipsistic disregard for how his bizarre behavior will affect children’s development. But the motives of the government/media establishment that goes out of its way to promote this pathology can only be malign.

This gets at the heart of the deeper sickness that liberals mislabel “tolerance”:

“Being transgender is not a choice,” [Sconce] wrote in a letter to Yosemite High employees earlier this week.

He literally believes that he has no choice but to medically disfigure the body God gave him, and to present himself to children dressed in women’s clothes. Likewise, we are encouraged — or rather required — to believe that people have no choice but to indulge in politically approved sexual perversions, no matter how deleterious they may be to public health.

If we have no choice about the way we behave, we are not humans. We are a lower order of being, fit only to be controlled from above, like farm animals. There is no virtue, no heroism, no internal triumph of right over wrong. If we have no choice, we are slaves.

Small wonder authoritarians hate Christianity so much. Christianity insists that you acknowledge that you do have a choice, and you are responsible for making it, not the government or media. In contrast, liberalism lets you take the herded animal’s path of least resistance — the low road leading downward, which we wind up on by default if we declare ourselves victims and don’t exert any effort.

Sconce’s attempt to prove that he has no choice proves only that his disease is the last thing a decent person would wish to encourage in others:

“Consider: I have lost my marriage of 35 years to a magnificent, brilliant woman, am going to lose my house, and am spending (money) on serious and painful physical changes — including both medical and psychological services.

“I have been shunned by those who used to be my friends, have been shunned by family, have had people try to cast demons out of me, have left my church of nearly 30 years, and have been scorned and laughed at by those who had for decades said they were my friends. Who would choose that?”

Likewise, you could ruin your life by drinking, by drugs, by gambling, by chasing after women. The resulting devastation would hardly prove that you had no choice.

Kudos to Fox News for not following the disgusting media practice of referring to men who pretend they are women with feminine pronouns. It is cruel to encourage the mentally ill in their delusions, rather than try to help them back to sanity.

But to the “mainstream” left-wing media, Sconce is just a pawn. Like the children whose innocence will be unnecessarily tainted by the grotesque spectacle he making of his illness, his fate is irrelevant in the grand struggle to destroy our conception of ourselves as capable of choice.