------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is Chapter 11/Section 2, of the 2024 Serialization of the third printing (2013) of the book by Steven Jonas: "The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022. The book was first published in 1996. The second edition was published in 2013 and is available in Kindle on Amazon. A third, printed edition of the book, is currently in preparation and should be in publication sometime next month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Proclamation of Right (Easter Sun day, March 29, 2009) [1]
"Section 3 of the 31st Amendment to the Constitution of the Unit ed States has established that the human aberration homosexuality is a matter of choice. Homosexuality and its associated behaviors, pedophilia, sadism, and masochism, are all abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse, as well as sins against God. They are to be discouraged, avoided, and yes, condemned.
"Despite the measures taken pursuant to Section 3 of the 31st Amendment, in the eyes of God and every right-thinking American, homosexuality and its associated perversions still constitute a plague upon our land and people. Therefore, pursuant to the powers vested in me by Section 6 of the 32nd Amendment to the Constitution, I hereby decree a special national emergency in order to deal appropriately with this plague.
"As of this holy day, in homage to our almighty God, in recognition of His declaration that homosexuality is the worst kind of perversion, I hereby declare that homosexuality, in action or thought, is a crime. The Congress and the legislatures of each state are hereby empowered to enforce this Proclamation in any manner of their choosing. They will be supported by the power of the Federal government to the full extent of the law."
Author's Commentary
Much of the defining language of President Hague's statement was drawn directly from that of an Amendment to the Constitution of Oregon, a state in which the Constitution could be amended through the process of Initiative and Referendum (see Chapter four). First proposed in 1992, adoption of the Amendment was defeated by the voters in that year, but eventually passed, in 1998. The Amendment read (Egan):
"Section 1. This state shall not recognize any categorical provision such as 'sexual orientation,' 'sexual preference,' and similar phrases that includes homosexuality, Quotas (sic), minority status, affirmative action, or any similar concepts, shall not apply to these forms of conduct, nor shall government pro mote these behaviors.
"Section 2. State, regional and local governments and their proper ties and monies shall not be used to promote, encourage, or facilitate homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism, or masochism.
"Section 3. State, regional, and local governments and their departments, agencies and other entities, including specifically the State Department of Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse and that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided.
"Section 4. It shall be considered that it is the intent of the people in enacting this section that if any part thereof is held unconstitutional, the remaining parts shall be held in force."
Homophobia in the Law
Restrictions had been placed on public and private homosexual behavior and "thought" by Federal and state legislation written pursuant to Section 3 of the 31st (Morality) Amendment. (That Amendment you may recall, following the precepts of former Vice-President J. Danforth Quayle [DeWitt] and other Right-Wing Reactionaries of the Transition Era, declared that homosexuality was a matter of choice [see also Chapter seven].) Some of that legislation was modeled on the provisions of the Oregon measure as well as that of a similar one known as "Colorado Amendment 2," which first made its appearance in that same year.
However, all of this, the President told the people, was not considered to be "enough" to deal with the "threat." Thus, according to Hague, issuance under the Presidential decree power of the Proclamation of Right was absolutely necessary if morality, and by implication the Republic itself, were to be saved and redeemed in the eyes of the Lord.
After Hague issued the Proclamation of Right, some states enacted legislation placing homosexuals entirely outside the protection of the law, and disenfranchising them. A forerunner of this action was the enactment of the "Nuremberg Laws" against the Jews by the Nazi German Reichstag on September 15, 1935, that eliminated most civil rights and liberties protections for Jews living in Nazi Germany).
As Prof. Lucy Dawidowicz once wrote (1975):
"These laws legitimated racist anti-Semitism and turned the 'purity of German blood' into a legal category. They forbade marriage and extra-marital relations between Jews and [other] Germans and disenfranchised those 'subjects' or 'nationals' of Germany who were not of 'German' blood."
Details of just how the determinations of "homosexual" were to be made, by whom, and with what appeals procedures, were not included in any of these statutes. That followed the pattern of the "homo"'quarantine" (they meant "isolation") proposals that were made by some Far Rightists during the Transition Era for dealing with the AIDS problem: no details on who, where, by whom, for how long, at what cost, to be paid for by whom, and so forth. These details had also been ignored in the Colorado and Oregon Amendments and their campaigns. In practice, the legislation passed pursuant to the Hague decree was enforced with what might be politely called "rough justice," usual ly meted out by the Helmsmen (see below).
The Politics of Mythology
It is a fascinating commentary on the projection and use by Right-Wing Reaction of what Alex Poughton referred to as the "Politics of Mythology" (see Chapter six) that in both the old Oregon initiative and the very first Presidential decree issued by Hague, homosexuality was directly linked with "pedophilia, sadism, and masochism." It was well-known at the time of the first introduction of the Oregon measure that the vast majority of sex abusers of children of either gender were heterosexual males, 60 percent of them family members of the abused child, and fewer than 5 percent of them strangers to the victim (Groth).
Further, there was no evidence to show that (presumably sexual, but otherwise undefined) "sadism and masochism" were any more widely associated with the sexual practices of homosexuals than with those of heterosexuals. But once again, in the 90s it was considered unfair to confuse Right-Wing Reactionaries with facts. Both at that time and later, if the Right-Wing Reactionaries in question were homophobic, racist, misogynist, or otherwise xenophobic, and also possibly prone to violence, it was considered unwise to do so as well.
The Politics of Homophobia
As detailed earlier in this book (see Chapters four, six, and seven), homophobia had been a major element in the Republican-Christian Alliance's drive to virtually complete control of the government both at the Federal and state levels. I have previously cited the statement by the Rev. Pat Robertson commenting on tactics and strategy used in the 1992 elections (Right"'Wing Watch): "As an issue in American politics, abortion is no longer current. . . . The 'gay issue,' however, proved promising."
In 1995, in a fund-raising letter (June, 1995), the Reverend Jerry Falwell posed the question: "Has America become 'One Nation Under Gays?'" He then went on to tell his readers that "the radical gay agenda is destroying America!" And what precisely was that country"'destroying agenda?
"Homosexual Demand #1: Passage of a Gay Civil Rights Law.
"Homosexual Demand #2: Massive increase in spending for AIDS research and patient care.
"Homosexual Demand #3: An end to 'family' related discrimination against gays, lesbians, etc.
"Homosexual Demand #4: Acceptance and promotion of the gay life style within the educational system."
And that was it, not underinvestment, the "free market" and its necessarily accompanying greed run wild, or institutionalized and political racism, but those four elements of some imaginary national homo sexual manifesto. They were "destroying America." One could imagine none of those things being done (and they weren't), and the country still being in a pretty bad way (it was). But that didn't stop Falwell or his colleagues in Right-Wing Reaction from using the arguments over and over again. After all, they thought it was good politics, if nothing else.
As early as 1985, at a conference entitled "How to Win an Election," the future patron of Jefferson Davis Hague, Newton Gingrich, spoke about Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. "AIDS," as it was known, was a painfully debilitating condition that almost invariably lead to death. It was later shown that in many of its victims AIDS was associated with a wide variety of diseases that generally weakened the immune system, some of which diseases were sexually transmitted. However, it had been quite incorrectly thought for quite some time that the appearance of AIDS had some special linkage to homosexuality. (The homophobes never abandoned that view.)
In any case, in 1985 when Gingrich addressed the issue AIDS presented as a serious public health threat, one that was poorly understood. An increasing number of people, many of them happening to be homosexual, were suffering terribly from the condition. At that time, addressing a Right-Wing Reactionary political planning conference, the future speaker of the House of Representatives had this to say about it (The Freedom Writer): "AIDS is a real crisis. It is worth paying attention to, to study. It's something you ought to be looking at."
"Ah ha," you might say, "your arch" ''Right-Wing Reactionary" is showing concern about AIDS and its victims, and thinks something should be done to deal with it." Well-- no. Our "Mr. Newt" as the Right-Wing Reactionary political flack Rush Limbaugh inexplicably liked to call him, was not showing concern about this new disease and its victims. Rather he was showing concern about the potential to exploit this growing health and health care problem for Right-Wing political purposes. For he had gone on to say:
"AIDS will do more to direct America (sic) back to the cost of violating traditional values, and to make America (sic) aware of the danger of certain behavior than anything we've seen. For us, it's a great rallying cry (emphasis added)."
As noted in Chapters four (see esp. the quote from Quindlen) and nine, and illustrated here by Robertson, Falwell, and Gingrich, an important part of the Right"'Wing Reactionary strategy was the "Politics of Difference," the development of "enemies," the use of, as Sklar termed it (1995), the "Snake Oil of Scapegoating." The purpose was to provide a focus for rage and a distractor of anger that might otherwise be turned by the American people on the true causes of their dissatisfaction with their lot.
Accomplishing this end proved to be a challenge towards the middle of the Transition Era, following the collapse of the old Soviet Union in 1989. The "Commies," [2] both domestic and foreign, had provided a convenient enemy for over 40 years. But memories of them were rap idly becoming extinct, especially among a US population that had so little appreciation for or understanding of history. Anti-black racism was a constant, of course. But homophobia proved very useful.
The phenomenon of homophobia was in fact perfect for Right-Wing Reactionary political exploitation. It went much deeper into the unconscious of many people than either anti-communism or choice-control in the outcome of pregnancy did. It appealed to the sexual drive, issues of sexual identity, sexual insecurity, the fascination with the ultimate sexual symbol, the gun, especially the pistol. (In right-Wing Reactionary propaganda, homophobia and fear of "gun control" were often closely linked.) These were all issues that psychologically drove the Right-Wing masses in the old U.S.
"The Helmsmen"
As mentioned briefly in the last chapter, early in 2009, appropriately enough on Friday the 13th of February in that year, Hague established an armed force called "The Helmsmen," HM for short. Neither of the military nor of the Federal, state, or local police, the HM was an arm of Hague's new American Christian Nation Party. They were described as "those with their hands on the helm of the ship of God's state."
In this, as noted in the last chapter, in composition, role, and function the HM had much in common with Adolf Hitler's "Brown Shirts," the SA (Sturmabteilung), as they existed before the establishment of the national German government called the Third Reich. They also had much in common with Benito Mussolini's Black Shirts in Italy before the establishment of the fascist state there in 1922. The HM would also quickly come to have much in common with the Latin American "Death Squads" of the latter half of the 20th century.
Following the establishment of the New American Republics in 2011, the HM would come to combine the functions of the SA, its successor in Germany, the SS (Schutzstaffel, the "Black Shirts"), and the Gestapo (Geheime Staats Polizei, Secret State Police), as well as the Death Squads. However, in all of its activities, just as the SS was attached directly to the German Nazi Party, not to any branch the German government, the HM would be attached directly to the ACNP.
Therefore, in addition to a wide variety of responsibilities for forceful political repression, it was also charged with carrying out a variety of "moral policing" duties on behalf of the Party. Since this was the case, of the secret police/public state terrorist organizations known throughout the world, the HM was perhaps, ironically, most similar to the Muslim fundamentalist Iranian "Komitehs." They too combined a supposed "moral" regulatory function with their main role as physically violent political repressors.
There was an interesting historical circle connecting the Helmsmen with the Komitehs. In 1953 in Iran, a coup had overthrown a popularly elected Premier, Muhammed Mussadegh. It was engineered by the old U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and lead on the ground by one Kermit Roosevelt, a son of the 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt. The CIA replaced Mussadegh with a man who had been an open admirer of Adolf Hitler, Muhammed Reza Shah Pahlevi. He was the son of a former Army officer who himself had taken power from the previous ruler in a coup in 1921.
The "Shah," as he called himself, needed a secret police for political repression, and the CIA created and trained one for him. It was known as Savak. It was also known as one of the most brutal secret police forces in a world of many highly brutal such organizations (many of them trained by the CIA).
In 1979, the Shah's regime was overthrown by an even more repressive one, that of the Islamic Fundamentalist Ayatollah Khomenei. The Savak essentially remained in place for the Fundamentalist regime, which simply converted it into the Komitehs. In the waning days of the old U.S., a group of top-ranking officers of the Komitehs, considered to be an expert in combining the "moral policing" and secret police functions, came over to help train the first core group of Helmsmen. They were returning the CIA's "favor," as it were.
The membership of the HM was originally drawn from the ranks of the armed wings of the various Far Right groupings that Hague had drawn into the ACNP. As far back as 1994, Randall Terry, founder of the militant anti-freedom-of-choice-in-the-outcome-of-pregnancy organization Operation Rescue, had established a "leadership institute" to train "a cadre of people who are militant, who are fierce, who are unmerciful" (Stark). He said at the time that "the battle for America's soul" would produce "turmoil and disruption that will make the civil war look civil." In that he was prescient.
Some of the men and women first recruited to the HM already had significant experience in political violence. This stemmed, for example from the days in which they had destroyed most of the public elective pregnancy termination clinics and had intimidated or murdered enough legal abortion providers to drive the rest, qualified and unqualified, underground. Homophobic violence, of course, was featured by these groups as well. From the perspective of its creators, the HM would get off to a good start.
The HM also attracted many members to its ranks from the well-established Right-Wing Militia movement (ADL). It had experienced virtually unfettered growth from the time late Transition Era Republican leadership had sanctioned its "anti-(Federal)-government" philosophy (although, of course, "not its methods") (Newsday). That growth had been accelerated by the repeal by 2003 of all state laws (which had never been enforced in any case) that banned private militias and armies.
A Curley Oakwood Radio Broadcast Transcript (March 30, 2009)
Thank God, my friends, thank God, my friends, my friends-- Thank God! For through the mouth of Brother Hague, He has spoken. And He has spoken on our beloved and Godblessed nation's greatest problem: the plague of f*ggots! Oops, sorry. I guess I'm just not being politically correct [3] there. I meant to say the plague of fairies.
We are finally going to get some action, some real action, going on here. Now my friends, it's not as if this hasn't been called for a long time. It has. Why way back in the 90s, the good old Rev. Jerry [Falwell] said (1993):
"The battle lines are now drawn. If the gay agenda for America succeeds . . . you as a Christian will lose many of your rights. Our churches will be under attack. We will no longer be one nation under God. There is no middle ground. For Christians, there can be no peaceful co"'existence with those Sodomites whom God has given over to a reprobate mind. IF THE GAYS AND LESBIANS WIN THIS STRUGGLE . . . AMERICA WILL BE ON A ONE WAY STREET TO SOD OM AND GOMORRAH. . . . I am not going to sit back and let our precious nation be swept away by this demonic assault on our Christian values."
At about the same time, the eminent Keith Fournier, the Executive Director of the Rev. Pat's American Center for Law and Justice said (1994):
"There's nothing compassionate or socially desirable in tolerating, much less legislating, immorality, and yet we are coming to believe there is. We have bought the lie of the militant homosexual community-- namely it is 'compassionate' to elevate a disordered appetite to a civil right [emphasis added]."
And finally, ladies and gentlemen, permit me to sum up with a trenchant quote from the well"'renowned John Eldridge of Focus on the Family (Freedom Writer):
"I would not say this in other cultural contexts [4], but the gay agenda has all the elements of that which is truly evil. It is deceptive at every turn. It is destroying the souls and lives of those who embrace it."
Well, at that time Mr. Eldridge felt he couldn't say what was in his heart, in "other cultural contexts," meaning that outside world dominated by the liberalniggerloving media and the cultural elite, if you know who I mean-- are you listening Holly wood? But he could have now, and the President has said it for him.
Well, Mr. President. Now that you've said it, I hope you'll show some cojones (see, I'm multi"'lingual-- no ethnic bias here) and do some thing about it.
And while I'm at it, ladies and gentlemen, let me just mention, let me just comment briefly, on the President's best tool (if I may use that term) for doing something about it, if you know what I mean. I am referring of course to our new arm of discipline, The Helmsmen.
The Helmsmen are the People's Guides. They make sure that the Ship of State is always held on the course designed for it by the President and the Party. We value our freedom and we know how to handle it. But at the same time, we know that there are still plenty of secret liberalniggerlovers, f*ggots, blacks, spics, and other weak-minded people who they influence around. They remember the bad old days when you could say and think just about anything you wanted. And they'll abuse that freedom if left to their own devices.
We know that all men, even the best members of the Party, need guidance; that without it we all will descend directly into sin. So we have the Helmsmen, on the street, in our homes whenever with God's guidance they see the need, in all public places. They are always on the lookout to uphold and defend our nation's bedrock values of God, Church, and Family.
I have a message for you, my friends, and for all of our courageous Helmsmen, who are all my friends. The Helmsmen have a job to do, and they are going to do it. And my oh my, is our country going to be a better place for it. God bless each and every God-fearing American. Good night.
A Connie Conroy Note (February 14, 2009)
Some people think that the Helmsmen were named for the late Senator Jesse Helms. To be sure, we owe a great deal of our thinking to him. It was a national tragedy that he died before he could see the greatest that his type of thinking has produced for our country. He was one of the few men in the old niggerlovingliberal Congress who knew which end was up, that, for example, if there was a national holiday for Martin Luther Coon, the U.S. of A. didn't have long to go. And as it turned out, he was right. The Prez sez that if he had lived, he would have had a very important seat in our government. But it's just coincidence that the Helmsmen are called what they are.
Oh yes. Wish I had a Valentine today.
An Alex Poughton letter
August 18, 2009
Dear Karl,
Curiouser and curiouser. Funny things are happening in the follow"'up to Hague's anti"'gay decree. The homosexual population here has long since either gone to ground or, if they could afford it, moved to another country, if they could find one that would take them. Yet Hague chose to go after them, by making their sexual orientation, de fined as "choice" in the U.S. Constitution of all places, a crime, of all things.
Then, however, he takes no steps to officially enforce this new "law" at the Federal level, although his new "Helmsmen" are rumored to be having an "unofficial" go at it. Neither do very many of the states move to enforce it, although some move quickly to deprive any homosexuals who would dare to let it be known that they are such of any civil rights.
So, the general opinion in the diplomatic and foreign-journalist community is that with the number of closet gays in the Government and the military, if there were to be a real crackdown, it could be very embarrassing. Or that Hague is just sucking up to the Religious Right and showing how devoted to "God's Way" he really is, at least in word if not in deed. Or perhaps it's both.
You know that for years the Religious Right has made a big deal about what a sin, sin, sin homosexuality is. The Bible tells us it's bad, bad, bad, you know, so it must be so, so they tell us. Apropos of that position, although it means nothing here now, I came across an interesting piece written by a liberal churchman in the mid-90s. His view of what the Bible really has to say on the issue was rather at odds with the usual Right-Wing presentation of it back then. I thought I would share a few quotes from the article with you (Gomes).
"Christians opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that Scripture is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their opinion. . . . They do not, how ever, necessarily see quite as clear a meaning in biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth and the sin of greed.
"Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to homosexuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46 and II Kings 23:7) simply forbid [directly or by implication] prostitution, by men and women.
"Two others (Leviticus 18:19"'23 and 20:10"'16) are part of what Biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, planting two different kinds of seed in the same field and wearing garments of two different kinds of yarn. Tattoos, adultery, [incest], and sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are similarly outlawed.
"There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject.
"Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, I Corinthians 6:9-11, and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with homosexuality only be cause in Greco"'Roman culture it represented a secular sensuality that was contrary to the Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including heterosexuals. . . .
"And lest we forget Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about in-hospitality, according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to Ezekiel 16:49-50: 'Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sod om, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy.' To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah is about homo sexual sex is an analysis of about as much worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the whale is a treatise on fishing."
As you know, Karl, I'm no biblical scholar. And certainly the "innerancy boys" read what Prof. Gomes read and saw the stuff quite differently. But that really is the point, isn't it? The Bible is open to interpretation. The Fundamentalists are ministers, some of them Baptists. But Prof. Gomes was a Baptist minister too.
There is nothing I can find, even in the Bible, that says that one Baptist minister is any more qualified to give the final word on what the Word is and means than any other Baptist minister. But of course, that kind of reasoning wouldn't stop even one preacher who claims that the Bible is "innerant" from doing so, and proclaiming that he (and it is usually a "he") knows for sure just what it "innerantly" means.
Well, theology and Bible interpretation aside, there's one other curious thing about this whole thing I want to mention. (I do go on so, don't I?) In the grand scheme of things that are going on here, one has to wonder why Hague chose this one as the issue on which to issue his first decree, after having had the decree power for three years or so, what with there being so few identifiable gays and lesbians left here.
I wonder if this was really just sort of a dry run. Try out the technical features of the clause. See how the Congress and what's left of "public opinion" reacts. Well, in the event, all that stuff went very smoothly for Hague. And he relinquished his decree pow er in less than 60 days. But I just wonder if there isn't some thing bigger coming [5].
All the best, Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
ADL: Anti"'Defamation League, Beyond the Bombing: The Militia Men ace Grows, New York: 1995.
Bradsher, K., "Gap in Wealth In U.S. Called Widest in West," New York Times, April 17, 1995.
Dawidowicz, L.S., The War Against the Jews, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1975, p. 63.
De Witt, K., "Quayle Contends Homosexuality Is a Matter of Choice, Not Biology," New York
Times, September, 14, 1992.
Egan, T., "Oregon Measure Asks State to Repress Homosexuality," The New York Times, August 16, 1992.
Falwell, J., Fund-raising
letter: "WARNING: DO NOT ALLOW CHILDREN TO VIEW THE CONTENTS OF THE ENCLOSED SEALED ENVELOPE" [
Falwell, J., Fund"'raising letter: "Has America Become One Nation Under Gays?" June, 1995.
Fournier, K.A., "Appetite of Civil Right," Law and Justice, Vol. 3, No. One, 1994, p. 1.
Freedom Writer, "Inside Glen Eyrie Castle," August, 1994, p. 1.
Gomes, P.J., "Homophobic? Re"'Read Your Bible," New York Times, August 17, 1992.
Groth, A.N., cited in Meehan, B.T., and Graves, B., "OCA [Oregon Citizens Alliance] stirs
emotions with its 2nd flier," The Oregonian, September 25, 1992.
Newsday, "Gingrich: Fear of Feds is Genuine," May 8, 1995, p. A5.
Right"'Wing Watch, "Getting Ready for '94 and '96," December, 1992, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Sklar, H., "The Snake Oil of Scapegoating," Z Magazine, May, 1995, p. 49.
Stark, K., "Call It Pro"'Death," The Nation, August 22, 29, 1994, p. 183.
The Freedom Writer, "Newt Set Strategy For Religious Right-- 10 Years Ago!" February, 1995, p. 19.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author's Notes
1. There is no indication or evidence that J. Danforth Quayle, the Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Newton Gingrich, Pastor Peter J. Peters, Keith Fournier, John Eldridge, the Christian Coalition, or any of the other historical person ages or organizations mentioned in this chapter or elsewhere in this book in a similar manner, would necessarily have supported or approved in any way of the Jefferson Davis Hague's "Proclamation of Right," or any of its predecessor or successor laws, regulations, policies, or procedures, or of any of the events that occurred in the United States or the New American Republics at any time in the future, subsequent to his announce ment of it and the implementation of the policies carried out pursuant to it.
2. "Commie" was a 20th century pejorative vernacular term applied to a wide variety of persons, ranging from members of the tiny Communist Party/USA, through almost any citizen of the old Soviet Union, to many political progressives, whether Communist or communist or neither, both at home and abroad.
3. The term "politically correct" was a left-over from Transition Era Right-Wing Reactionary attack vocabulary. Oakwood and a few others still used it, although the Right-Wing Reactionary state and Federal governments had long since removed any public or private attempts to limit what was then called "hate speech." "Hate speech" was the term used to characterize the increasingly violent and virulent personal verbal attacks upon individuals and groups related to skin color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and the like, that had taken place with increasing frequency towards the end of the Transition Era.
The Right-Wing Reactionaries of the Era had applied the term "political correctness" in a derogatory fashion to any attempts by liberals and progressives to cause a general or specific moderation of such attacks. Those attempts, it should be noted, were circumscribed, and had had a limited ameliorating effect at best. By the early Fascist Period they had generally come to an end, under a relentless Right-Wing Reactionary onslaught spuriously based on "defending the First Amendment."
Not unexpectedly, the Right-Wing Reactionaries trotted out the First only to defend hate speech, not any other kinds of unpopular speech, such as that of critics of the old Viet Nam War. (Consistent with the concept of freedom of speech, much hate speech could have been circumscribed by invoking the old English common law intentional tort of assault: creating in another the apprehension of imminent physical harm. But the liberals never seem to have made use of that concept, one that is ensconced in our Constitution, of course.)
Be all this as it may, Oakwood and his ilk still went after the long-gone challengers of hate speech years later, using the "politically correct" label, just as during the late Transition Era Limbaugh and his ilk had gone after the long-defunct "Counter-Culture" even though likewise at its peak the latter had had a limited influence on the nation as a whole.
4. Eldridge was speaking, it has turned out, at a secret meeting of anti"'homosexual"'rights groups in the Glen Eyrie Castle outside of Colorado Springs, CO, held in the spring of 1994.
5. Poughton was right. There would be "something bigger coming," two years down the road. Hague was sparing in his use of the decree power under the old U.S. Constitution. But the next time he used it would spell the end of that document in all but name.
(Article changed on Jun 11, 2024 at 10:25 PM EDT)
