Sunday, February 16, 2014

Cultural Marxism, gay-style

The Chickadee has been hunting for left wing authoritarianism. She accepts that WEIRD societies aren't the ones to look for it in. It depends on how said authoritarianism is defined. Support for and government action in the name of disparate impact--heck, for the very existence of the EEOC--seems to argue that it's right in front of our noses. The second dictionary definition of authoritarianism:
of or pertaining to a governmental or political system, principle, or practice in which individual freedom is held as completely subordinate to the power or authority of the state, centered either in one person or a small group that is not constitutionally accountable to the people.
Okay, I suppose as a federal department it is accountable to the executive and funded by the legislative, both of which are accountable to the electorate, but there's at least an authoritarian streak present here, as there is with so much else that western governments do, some of which is supported by the right and increasingly more (most?) of which is supported by the left. A particular bugaboo of mine is hardly the only government example--nearly everything the Libertarian party opposes is authoritarian by this metric. "Authoritarian" need not necessarily be a derogatory term (immigration enforcement from my own perspective, for example), although it is usually employed as such.

The visceral opposition to a bill recently passed by the Kansas House (only to be killed by the state Senate) is quite authoritarian. The bill begins by saying that "no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to do any of the following, if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity regarding sex or gender", and then proceeds to codify as much with all the necessary accompanying legalese.

Yes, it is an attempt to protect the right for private institutions (and, far more problematically in my view, also a right for government employees to exempt themselves from job duties they have moral issues with performing) to refuse service to same-sex couples. It's discriminatory, so of course it's the most evil thing in the history of the world, but it's still a bill that restricts the ability of the state to coerce the behaviors of private citizens engaged in private activities. It's anti-authoritarian. To imply that support for it makes shows one to be fascistic or bigoted is exactly backwards, yet the social media feeds are full of exactly those accusations. It's understandable, though. Freedom of association has been outlawed for longer than members of the facebook generation have been alive--it's all they know.

Digging up the dead horse to beat it yet again, the comparisons to pedophilia and bestiality work here. Yes, there are presumably only fringe constituencies that support legal protections for these things, but less than a generation ago support for same-sex marriage was itself quite marginal.

This is a hobby horse not due to personal feelings on the specific issues surrounding homosexuality, but because of the arrogant self-righteousness of an idiotic generation--mine--that can boast of accomplishing roughly nothing, self-assuredly overturning millenia of moral and religious teachings while viciously steamrolling anyone who is apprehensive about so thoughtlessly dismissing what forever took to find.


Aaron said...

What we have now is pretty bad but isn't technically authoritarian, it's much more elegant. What we have is a media and academia complex that shapes public opinion and that public in turn bullies everyone into political correctness in a decentralized, ad-hoc fashion. Not authoritarianism unless you want to decide that how we define authoritarianism is somewhat arbitrary in that it draws a magic invisible line around this public utility called "the state" and sets a much higher threshold for moral panic depending on which side of the line an activity is taking place. This is my lazy layman's understanding of Cathedral anyways.

Raymond said...

It's more Brave New World than 1984 in style if not substance. In many ways worse - this is harder to overthrow because the outer party forms a majority of the population. The dissidents are few and far between.

Anonymous said...

State repression is quite open in the European vassal states of the Empire. For example;
For instance, the German government can, at will, deny nationalists their right to freedom of association. Suppose that a group of nationalist activists form a group (for the sake of the example, we shall call it the 'German Pigeon Keepers League'). If the German government judges the GPKL to be 'Neo-Nazi' (and therefore contrary to the Allied-imposed Grundgesetz, or Basic Law), it can ban it. In practice, this means that more than two members can never meet one another, or even telephone one another, ever again. This ban not only extends to meetings at political gatherings, but meetings over a cup of coffee as well. This exacts a heavy toll, socially and emotionally, on the nationalists concerned, particularly if they were close friends before the formation of the group. (As well as that, the activists may live in the same neighbourhood, or work at the same workplace, and so may have to change their place of residence, or job, accordingly). In our example, the police can easily enforce the ban because it has seized the party records for the GPKL - including membership lists (containing names, mobile phone numbers, addresses), financial records of party contributions and the like.