Your thoughts might be impure. Attorney General Holder is here to help.
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6660
by Robert Weissberg
On February 18th 2009, Eric Holder, our first African American Attorney General gave a well-publicized speech in which he called Americans cowards for, among other things, http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6654 in pillory so as to hector them with the usual accusations of racism, discrimination and all the rest as a first step to extract more tangible benefits. This much was clear. Less obvious, but more important, is that a “frank and open discussion” will inevitably invite government to monitor our private thoughts to build a “better” more racially just society. Such “honest” dialogues will not be policy debates as one might discuss school busing; this is about drawing to the surface what Peter Brimelow calls “hate facts,” that is, empirically indisputable truths that are justly inconvenient for America’s smothering liberal orthodoxy. Uttering them is, at least to champions of the reigning orthodoxy, far more hazardous than endorsing mere misguided public policy; they challenge the modern liberal state’s very foundations. In a nutshell, if Holder and company get their way, white America is to be put on the couch and coaxed to confess its selective misanthropic urges, and that done, we can be properly weaned from the thoughtcrimes debilitating blacks.Of all the tricks to defeat opponents, classifying opposing views as a debilitating mental illness is perhaps the most nefarious. This medicalization strategy was explicit in the Soviet Union where “deranged” dissidents required long stays in insane asylums. Communist China, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes also had their versions of forcefully refurbishing the dissident. The gentler American re-education method only differs in degree, not kind. Here college students caught ridiculing wacky feminists must undergo a therapy that inevitably begins by demanding frank acknowledgment of one’s injurious thoughts, regardless of intended harm, let alone accuracy. Such treatments are not unusual; they are official policy for as Paul Gottfried has observed, the modern welfare state takes reforming supposedly misguide beliefs as part of its it central ameliorative mission—a roof overhead, food on the table, and mush in the brain.
Those familiar with deadly European religious wars during the 16th to 17th century will recognize this sea change, a shift from the state repressing bad thinking to government punishing criminal behavior. To condense a complicated story, it was the battle over one’s inner faith that inflicted horrific slaughter across Europe. Being a “good” Catholic or Protestant required accepting as true the correct creed; just being law-abiding, even outwardly playing along, was insufficient. Mercifully, as the corpse pilled up, modern tolerance emerged—one suffered religious dissenters but did not kill them. Thanks to the influence of Locke and Voltaire among others, one’s inner religious beliefs became subordinated to outward behavior and these thoughts, even if noxious, were beyond the state’s reach. Actions count louder than words, which in turn, count louder than thoughts. Locke in particular argued that only God could detect what informed the heart, and quarrels over dogma were endemic, and to insist that the state coercively purify the heart was impossible and guaranteed civil war. Secular police now replaced the church’s torturers and executioners as the guardian of public morality. So, within certain broad limits, let people believe whatever faith they choose, but the state should focus on outward behavior, a sensible, violence-avoiding admonition.
History is reversing. Inner thoughts are again becoming central, and this reflects both ideology and new invasive technology. The burgeoning popularity of hate laws (especially in Europe where “hate” is a stand alone offense) apart from criminal conduct summarizes this worrisome trend. Since the ideological shift often begins in early public education, it is virtually invisible to adults save those with school-aged children bringing home their lessons but it is very real. Its central tenet is the psychological supposition that civil discord originates in the mind, and intervention here, not punishing any resultant behaviors, is a legitimate state function. That “bad thoughts” seldom amount to anything is irrelevant. So, for example, youngsters are taught about harmful stereotypes, so a ten-year old honestly saying that Asian classmates academically outperform African Americans will debilitate blacks as one might spread the flu. Even if unvoiced, “dangerous” views can wound, so asking only Asian classmates for help with math can lower the self-esteem of ignored black classmates. Youngsters also learn to eschew being judgmental, Cultural Relativism Lite, so to speak, and that all traits are “just as worthy as any other” to while some classmates excel at schoolwork, others are talented dancers, and everything counts equally. Bart Simpson, even Denise-the-Menace, is now “good” by thinking good, and if either happens to call a classmate a “fag,” off he goes for counseling so as to purge these urges. Learning to hold one’s tongue or behave civilly is now insufficient—root causes, i.e., bad thoughts, are to be targeted. If kids reject this educator-supplied nonsense (and most will) about the power of words, the message that “bad thinking,” independent of decent behavior, is impermissible in a good society will still sink in. At a minimum, children learn to keep quiet about certain “negative” facts, especially when they have a racial or sexual element.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/a_kinder_gentler_totalitarianism