The LGBT Movement is the New Fascism. Conform or Else! (Part 2)
This is part 2 of my commentary on the the forced resignation of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich and the “new fascism” that is the LGBT movement. Part 1 is here.
Even calm voices such as Dennis Prager is alarmed by the actions of Mozilla. In a recent blog for WND Prager actually told people to uninstall Firefox and boycott Mozilla entirely – something he has never done in his career. Prager warned America that the issue of totalitarianism is the most pressing issue in America right now and must be fought by lovers of liberty. He wrote:
“Worldwide…every genocidal totalitarian regime of the 20th century was leftist. And domestically, too, the left has much less interest in liberty than in forcing people to act in accord with its values. A totalitarian streak is part of the left’s DNA. How you think matters and what you do away outside of work matters: More than 20 states prohibit judges from being leaders in the Boy Scouts – because the left deems the Boy Scouts homophobic.”
Prager is right and that is a frightening thought. At this moment the left is not seeking rights and equality for everyone, the left is seeking conformity by everyone. This matters for two reasons:
First, it will kill the rights of free speech and religious freedom. There can be no diversity of thought and ideas in a totalitarian state. Those with divergent views are called dissidents and must be eliminated in order to preserve the conformity of the totalitarian state. We can see that plainly in the events surrounding Mozilla.
Second, the very rights homosexuals believe they are fighting for and winning will be lost. That’s the deception of the left, they will champion your cause so long as it gains them political power but once they have what they want you will be a footnote in their biography. For this reason every person of every political stripe must find the common ground to fight totalitarianism. That common ground is liberty.
Matt Walsh wrote a blog commenting on this situation in which he informed homosexual activists that they will lose for this very reason; advancements gained through tyranny are only temporary, at best. Walsh writes:
“Don’t you people read? Haven’t you learned anything from history? ‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long. Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed. In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic. You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion. You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division. You showed your hand, and now you’ll lose the game. It’s inevitable.”
I can’t help but think that what angers homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan so much about this situation is that he is able to see past the mob mentality to the eventual outcome. While a few gays and their supporters rejoice over the ouster of Brendan Eich guys like Sullivan can likely see into the future where the rights of everyone are trampled under the tyranny of a government that demands conformity to itself. So Sullivan, like many others, rather than rejoicing over this tragic event is justifiably angry.
Some have hurled charges of bigotry at Brendan Eich and others like him that dare to have a view that goes against the politically correct liberal approved view of marriage. But as Matt Walsh argues, there is no bigotry in adhering to the timeless, traditional, and biologically correct view of marriage, there is only bigotry in seeking to ruin a man for expressing his view:
“Marriage has, had, and always will have, by definition, a certain character and purpose; a character and purpose centered around, above all things, the family. Marriage is the foundation through which a thriving and lasting civilization sees to the propagation of itself. Human beings can only reproduce by means of ‘heterosexuality,’ and this reality sets the ‘heterosexual’ union apart. Marriage is meant to be the context in which this reproduction occurs…You want to be free to love? You are. You always have been. Heterosexuals don’t claim to monopolize love; only reproduction. Bigotry? There is nothing bigoted about it. This is mere science. You see, bigotry only enters into the conversation when you try to destroy a man’s life just for participating in the conversation.”
There it is; a simple definition of the view of marriage that has been the foundation for society for centuries. Any and all efforts to minimize or redefine that definition may have temporary gains and hurt good people like Brendan Eich, but they can never change what is inherent in the definition. A cow, by definition cannot be a horse.
So cheer for your momentary victory because, as Matt Walsh said, you will lose. It’s inevitable.