by Peter Hyatt
"She's got coal in her mouth" whispered a young woman to another, referring to her elderly neighbor. "She doesn't know what's going to happen to her for it."
This was an expression of the German people under the tyranny of an extreme left wing socialism that was distinctly national in nature, yet had encroached upon every aspect of German society, from the cradle (have more Aryan babies) to the grave (Euthanasia) and everything in between, including the Hitler Youth.
The "coal in the mouth" was used as an expression to warn others to stay away from someone who might whisper against the Nazis which, if you are caught listening and not reporting, could endanger your own life.
The last thing the Nazi party needed was the last thing any messianic government needs: freedom of speech. The Nazi party would not abide freedom to oppose it and citizens soon learned, first from social consequence but eventually to mortal consequence, the cost of speaking against their government's opinions.
In Socialism, government is an opinion with a gun, that is, an opinion with the ability to coerce citizens into agreeing with it. Thus those with "coal in their mouths" could be either avoided outright as the most passive response, or if identified, could lose their employment as a result of not joining the party, which, once war began, changed quickly, leading to imprisonment and death.
Where there is tyranny, death is, historically, not far behind. Every major world leader who promised to use government to enhance the social standing of his citizens brought extreme bloodshed.
Objective truth is very limiting to mankind, as the laws of nature show. Studying the law of gravity led to flight, but even flight today must some time land.
When objective truth is torn down, tyranny comes for a simple reason:
Nature abhors a vacuum, and the knee-jerk replacement is human emotion. Human emotions are tyrannical in nature and because they are so personal, when you disagree with the one asserting, you are often labeled as "hateful", or evil, in some way. We no longer debate if a law is good for mankind, but if it feels good to someone, and the rancor turns against those who do not share the same feeling.
A law is one, now, that "feels good" rather than "does good." This is why so many people are shocked at such illogical agenda the extremists push in the name of "progression." Standing as a symbol of this is the "identity" created by the US Supreme Court, which is why few seem to fret over the destruction of the US Constitution. They must wait to learn what an "identity" really is when "identity" trumps "citizen" based upon this new law. Other than the immediate victor, America will begin to mourn the loss of freedom.
Many of the "progressive" laws or assertions come in the form of shocking headlines and people often say, "I can't believe how stupid this is!" but as the main stream media support the elitist views in order to maintain access to the White House, for instance, the reporting causes the public to 'fall in line', especially as the emotion or urge behind the ideology employs the propaganda technique of vilifying opponents.
If racism is illogical discrimination based upon race, the government's reaction was not to use leadership to encourage people away from racism, but to employ it, itself. Your mother (or now, grandmother) told you, "two wrongs don't make a right" but the New York Times celebrated "affirmative action", decades ago, as a victory for minorities. Racism by you is evil, but racism by th government is good. This is an example of calling good "evil, while calling evil "good."
The Bruce Jenner example stands symbolically before us as an assault on science. Main Stream Media now addresses a man who is scientifically and factually a 65 year old man, as a college aged female. He is addressed as a woman because he "feels" like a woman. Feeling trumps science. But because this is human emotion, the tyranny means that those who call him "Bruce" are labeled as "hateful, judgmental, religious right wing nuts with guns."
With Ramadan almost over, the Ramadan scorecard looks like this on Day 23:
Number of people killed in the name of Islam: 2227
Number of people injured in the name of Islam: 2718
Number of people killed in the name of Judaism and Christianity: 0
Number of Muslims killed by Islamophobia: 0
We can do something similar with rapes of women and murders of homosexuals.
Number of protests by same-sex advocates against same sex violence: 0
Yet the president said we were training "ISIL" (see tele-prompter) and "we will never be at war with Islam" as he continues to denigrate Christianity, and offering billions of dollars to make the nuclear deal with Israel's sworn enemy, Iran, though they continue to chant, "Down with America; Death to Israel."
Islam is the religion that teaches the Koran. The Koran teaches its followers to conquer others by violence and extort a tax from them. It specifically calls for death to homosexuals. Obama promised that our country will never be at war with this ideology.
Yet, in falling in line with the extremists, there are no protests against Islam by the gay community; instead, targeting and destroying a bakery, and a Jewish organization that freely offered help to those who wanted it.
A 21 year old Muslim college student said "I don't feel safe because the movie, "American Sniper" was being played at her school. The school canceled the showing. "Feeling" tyranny exercised again and again. Her religion teaches death, but a movie made her unsafe, though there had been no anti Muslim violence; that is, no evidence of a threat. The college officials measured the scientific evidence of potential violence versus the feelings someone had.
The "feelings" won.
This is why, sometimes unfairly, leftists are called "stupid" because of illogical rule of emotions being backed by the ruling left. The assertion, however, is that the leftist is "morally superior" as her feelings arise from her. I saw this recently in a rant on Facebook about the minimum wage. The poster was tired of being insulted, so she insulted her critics and claimed moral superiority, yet this was done without a single business study of the historic impact of the minimum wage. It characterized business owners as "evil" and workers as "good" and propagated her own business, in the red, as the shining example of righteousness, even though going out of the red into profit would allow her to hire more workers. Yet, "feelings" trumped fact, or in the case, "feelings" ruled, and no facts, pro or con, were introduced. Unwittingly, she praises Grecian practice as a moral example with the lesson: losing money is right, while making money is wrong.
Thus, the "illogic" that people read today, so often, that shock wears off, much like the latest "scandal fatigue" with all things Clinton. People are just 'too accustomed" to the shock and, like Hillary commenting on the dead in Bengazi, "What does it matter?"
"Identity" has urges which sometimes change, dissipate, or change back again. It is a creation of a new entity in the United States, unprecedented in our history, but not so in human history. This is the ultimate of inconsistent and will have inconsistent out workings and inconsistent application and...eventually, consequences that people will not like.
The same is here in America, today, with the government's new declaration that homosexuality is no longer a psychological disorder, having been taken out of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) a generation ago, by protests, violence and threats, as statistical data did not change, but is now something to be considered by the ruling elite, in the highest moral understanding, that is, to be affirmed, with parades, celebrations and symbols, above that which historic Judaism and Christianity declare. This opinion is now an enforced opinion, where freedom to oppose it no longer exists without consequence. Hilary Clinton said religious people need to "change their beliefs." This is an honest statement from Mrs. Clinton in that she recognizes that the two ideologies are not compatible.
This may sound like music to the ears of the same sex rights movement, but those who prize freedom above identity, including same sex, say otherwise, even though they have been shut out from main stream media.
Several years ago, it was more common to see protests against same sex marriage, in defense of historical marriage than today. Protesters on both sides had the freedom to hold up signs seeking to have their opinion heard by the public. Same sex proponents and people of faith both had equal rights to protest, one standing with signs, walking in circles, on one side of the street, while others, walking in circles, carrying in signs on the other side of the street without violence. It was said to be "democracy in action" to the rest of the world.
No longer is this true.
In a protest several years ago, there was a man who was a licensed social worker, who, upon religious conviction, lobbied against same-sex marriage. He received numerous threats, including the threat to get him fired, claiming his "prejudice" would keep him from serving "all" the community in which he labors. He denied such, and said that he willingly helped all people, regardless of sexuality, adding that he did not ask about their sexuality, nor did any of his colleagues.
This did not satisfy the social activists because of human nature. They did not "feel", emotionally, that this was sufficient, and for good reason; the "feeling" is the source of tyranny.
Now, with the Supreme Court having usurped the Constitution, this same man, should a formal complaint be filed, stands to lose his professional license under the claim he could not appropriately serve the community he is licensed to serve, since it now includes same-sex married couples that his state must recognize, and would lose his ability to provide for his family. Someone "feels" he might not treat one person the same as another, therefore, this "feeling" trumps facts, so the accused could suffer much distress, with fines, imprisonment, loss of health, loss of standing, and so on. This is simply because he disagreed, in principle, about sex. This is what tyrants do: they pummel disagreement.
This is the same as Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 1940's.
It is the same, now, for not only licensed social workers, but for licensed nurses, doctors and other professionals who may face punitive action and mandatory "sensitivity training" by the fascist mandate that they are not permitted to "think" that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, or even that it is objectionable on religious grounds, as sin.
This is to legislate thought, something most of us believed would never happen on American soil. This is the reason many veterans fought for this country, risking and even sacrificing their lives "in the defense of democracy", that is, rule by elected officials, and not judges who legislate from the bench.
Even in Major League Baseball, one religious athlete was publicly castigated because he did not want to attend a speech by a former ball player who is a homosexual. He was employed to play baseball, and did not come to work to be lectured about sexuality. His extremist general manager thought otherwise and if not for a hot-streak hitting, the player would likely have found himself 'in the doghouse' rather than the dug out.
In the National Football League, teams were bullied into drafting a marginal player solely because said player had sex with men. The criteria for a million dollar contract was no longer restricted to football, but now, the ideology ruling via "feeling" or "urge", prevailed. He received a big check and was drafted and fellow teammates were "warned" not to "feel" uncomfortable in the locker room with one who, in the words of some of the teammates, engaged in "unnatural" acts. This was their opinion, that is, something invisible, and within their minds, yet some feared to articulate this thought, for not wanting to lose their job.
Publicly, teams said one thing, but privately quotes revealed the pressure they felt.
Said player, drafted and celebrated, not for talent, but for having sex with men, was called a "hero", yet now is no longer in the NFL. The NFL
Although a social worker or medical professional can say that he or she treats all people the same, in practice, these claims against them are likely to increase, emboldened by such court actions as we saw against JONAH, the Jewish organization that offered assistance to those who identified as homosexual, but did not wish to live a homosexual life. They voluntarily came to the faith-based organization for intervention. The punitive court ruling against them is just the tip of the ice berg. While no court would mandate that a mosque perform a Jewish wedding ceremony, we can now expect militant homosexuality to apply for voting membership, specially in churches and religious organizations that hold that "man shall not lie with man, as with woman, for it is an abomination" to be eternal truth. Should a practicing homosexual apply, for example, as a youth pastor, and be refused because his activity is against the Scriptural or Confessional standard of the organization, he can thus sue them for discrimination. This may then next happen to private religious schools.
What would the courts do in such suits? Likely what it did against JONAH, siding with the wealthy Southern Poverty Law Center in seeking the demise of religious organizations that "have coal in their mouths" against the encroaching tyrannical government. Note the inclusion of emotional rhetoric that accompanies the arguments against people of faith with the principle word employed being "hate" in some form.
Will licensed social workers and medical professionals be able to hold on to their licenses while exercising their right to freedom of religion?
What of those professionals who express their personal opinions about sexuality, in private? Will they be seen as having "coal in the mouth" and reported as "anti-gay" with the hopes that their employers will terminate them?
What of gay people who call for tolerance for people of faith who disagree with them? Will they be the "uncle toms" of gay rights?
Or, what happens to the licensed professional, including a public school teacher, who is known to attend a church or synagogue that holds to Biblical marriage? Will this professional's license and subsequent employment be in jeopardy due to a private religious belief?
It reminds me of the loaded question from "The Mortal Storm" where a beloved Jewish professor suddenly lost his esteem, standing in the university, and then his job, and finally his life, all because of his answer to the following question:
"Do you really believe Aryan blood and non-Aryan blood are the same?"
The character responded that "science proves that all of our blood is the same" thus began the spiral where his fellow teachers feared talking to him, down to the end of his life in a concentration camp.
Without any scientific evidence quoted, the judge in the JONAH case likened the view of psychological trauma related to homosexuality to those who challenged Christopher Columbus claiming the world was flat. He refused to allow the bevy of psychologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who intended to testify in the positive change in the mental health of those who voluntarily sought help, conflicting the testimony of the two men whom the SLPC used to bring the major suit. (A video emerged of one of the two young men volunteering to becomes a spokesman for JONAH).
This judge is up upon his science as strongly as he is with history: even the ancient Greeks had come close to measuring the circumference of the earth long before Columbus set sail.
We are now, in the present, a society where many professionals will not dare to give a contrary opinion on homosexuality for fear of being labeled "homophobic", losing one's employment through various means of pressure or protest, and perhaps, being seen as a 'criminal' who perpetrates a 'hate' crime, simply for holding to a belief about human sexuality. The financial cost, as JONAH exhibits, is destructive. Homosexuals who support the religious freedom prior to the recent decision were a small and often despised minority who were called "self - loathing" for wanting to allow religious freedom.
Homosexuals who value freedom of speech know that the Supreme Court's decision was not a celebratory day for them, but a blow to freedom, and with the Islamization under Barack Hussein Obama, may one day long for the "good old days" where their biggest gripe was of hurt feelings from religious people, instead of living, perhaps, under the militant views of the Koran, which calls for their deaths by stoning.
There is one other thing that should be understood by those of you who seek to understand human nature.
This is the sad reality that impacts society, but is fueled by baiting politicians who always benefit, buying, or selling short, American society.
When the government legislates "feelings", either through actual laws, court rulings, fines, suspensions, punishments, etc; in short, coercion of some form, there is a quiet, but powerful resentment that builds up within the one who has been demonized for the thoughts within his head.
Want to see a "white pride" movement in America, to further destroy the frail structure of race relations today?
Accomplish it by falsely blaming and demonizing white people, through Hollywood, political speeches, and main stream media. Utilize the powerful "feeling" to trump laws and principles.
Tell innocent people, with light skin, that the government policies of the last 50 years in Baltimore, which was ruled mostly by black people in the Democrat party, that the financial poverty, moral poverty and criminal culture is all because of white Republicans, who should be "ashamed" of their skin color, no matter how illogical it sounds, and have the main stream media repeat it often enough, and we will see the inevitable "backlash" of human nature. This is the sad reality of our nature. Bully someone enough and eventually, he may fight back.
History is on the side of logic, consistency and the laws of nature.
Civil unrest, confusion and eventual death is on the side of illogic, inconsistency, and war with the laws of nature.
So when a school goes bankrupt because it had to build new bathrooms that were "gender neutral" because a social-engineering mother dressed up her little boy in girl's clothing to make him "unique" and "special", while other schools order new curriculum that removes all the words "boys" and "girls" from them, and mandates that a white teacher assaulted by a black male student should be disciplined for not understanding the "methodology" of male, black learning, and when a "feeling" that many cultures must be "better" than our culture, and imports a culture that vows to kill you, and begins to experience success, you will know the consistency in history.
As lawyers line their pockets in each illogical move, and the governing elite continue to build a voter base of those who reject logic, the "coal" in the mouth will change. If today it is sex, it will be something else tomorrow, and judging by the factors, it may be that the same-sex movement's refusal to criticize Islam's murdering of homosexuals as well as its pedophilic-like hatred of women, as seen in Sweden's rape epidemic and fudging of statistics, so it is that today's "coal in the mouth" will be a different piece of coal, but the notion of lost freedom will remain the same.
People of faith (Jews and Christians) support basic human "rights" for all "citizens", regardless of who they have sex with. They disagree with some, but tolerance was essential to both sides. This is now gone, replaced with tyrannical ideologies that must be implemented now, without pausing to give consideration, and must have an enemy to blame.
In Germany, the Nazi party targeted Jews as the principle enemy, to the point where "feeling" trumped science, at its core, claiming "Aryan and non-Aryan genetic difference" because they "felt" it to be so.
Those who did not agree, even as German citizens, were persecuted by whom? This is a critical question to answer.
You may quickly say, "the Nazis", but I must ask you to continue your thought process by asking, "Who were the Nazis?"
The "Nazis" were those who, far more than being only extreme socialists of nationalism, they were actually a created "identity", with the claim of usurping the law of science.
Those who did not agree with the "feeling" that Aryan blood was different than non-Aryan blood were persecuted by this new creation, known as an "identity", which trumped German citizenship.
Jews did not initially understand this.
Many said that they were "German citizens" and had even fought for Germany in the Great War. They failed to grasp that the Nazi was not a political party, but a brand new "identity", replete with its own "feeling" that over-rode, or nullified, the simple scientific finds under a microscope.
The US Supreme Court has created an "identity" in which they have not only legislated, which is why a dissenter wrote that it is the death of democracy, since what awaits courts based upon this ruling is a tidal wave of degradation of citizens, but it also came from non-elected officials, trumping the Constitution.
At the center of this is how we "feel" about two very nice women, living down the block, who, we were told, were not allowed to leave property to one another. This did not "feel" right, even if it wasn't true from the start.
Rather than respect the differences, a small bakery was targeted as was a small Jewish counseling program. Both were pummeled and unpaid fines can lead to imprisonment. People quake before offering a personal opinion on this topic leaving them embittered at being silenced, or worse, angry at being slandered.
This is just the beginning.
This is the tip of the ice berg of a madness that history tells us will leave bloodshed in its wake.
It always has led to the loss of life. Tyranny reaches its zenith in death of opposition.
We wanted to make the world safe for democracy and even tiny countries who dared disagree with us found our politicians likening them to Hitler first, followed by bombs next, until they promise to agree with us.
What awaits us is the one thing that can expose human nature more than anything else:
When little boys can yell at armed police officers with taunts of having sex with the officer's mother, while another top cop can issue "stand down" orders to let violence run its course, and while it becomes more and more difficult to teach one's own children the difference between right and wrong, under the name of "pseudo intellectualism", which quickly denigrates to name calling, and the incivility comes to the teenage years, where testosterone fulfills the violent impulses, we will know why objective truth was so valued by those who founded our country, with warning after warning, that government must restrict itself to stay out of regulating thought ignored, that those who celebrate today, will join the mourners tomorrow, except the mourners, long slandered, libeled, and hated, may not seek consoling unity.
Do you recall the many articles where a statement gave a sense of awkwardness to the reader, and the analysis put structure and science to statement, confirming the intuition?
What ruled the day?
That a statement "felt" deceptive?
Or, that a statement is shown to be deceptive by the careful, even-handed application of standards?
Thus, the series of articles in a blog that is mostly for actual analysis, since analysis is based upon principles, and its conclusion is in debt to an understanding of human nature. The stricter adherence to principle, in context, and the deeper insight into human nature, the higher the success rate.
We are at war with nature and as we bow to ideologies that 'worship' human emotion, disagreement will continue to provoke the deepest resentment because the origin of the ideology was human emotion, highly personal, and the reaction, judging by history, for disagreement has ultimately led to death. The "identity" is a new creation, with rights that trump those of "citizens", and I seek to learn what "identity" will come next, that is, within the next two years, specifically.
A citizen is stationary, but "identity" does, or can change, at any time. Hence, the status legally is not fixed.
As freedom has been lost in certain topics, I leave it up to readers to predict what is next to go.
What is for certain, within this trend is this:
Sex may be today's hot "coal in the mouth", but it will be something else, tomorrow.
The question for readers that I hope to glean information from via their answers is this:
What will be the next "coal in the mouth", in your opinion?
I have a few ideas, but wish to first hear from you.
What are "purple" lions?