HOT TIP: A complete, issue by issue US voter guide will publish on October 31, my Special Day.
Time was when I could wreak havoc upon a nation by influencing a single man. I still do that, but in Western democracies it has become much harder; I now have to influence entire populations. But I love a challenge. And while the work is slower, it’s much more satisfying. Where I used to change the heart of the king I now work night and day to change the heart of the voter. But never fear, my servants, the gates of Hell prevail against all but one, and voters are easily prevailed upon.
So with that, let me continue my voter issue guidance for US voters in the upcoming congressional elections.
Elections in the United States always heat things up around here. You see, the United States used to be the greatest threat on earth to my kingdom. Like a great beacon of hope, sending out its shadow-scattering light seemingly without end, the United States used to keep us up at night. But thankfully, following the example of Europe before it, in recent years most of the little lights of that great light have quietly snuggled under every comfortable bushel I set out for them. (Unfortunately it’s true that there is no rest for the wicked, and now I’m fighting darkness-shattering blinding light bursting forth in other parts of the globe.)
Lest the light shine again from the United States, please let me clue you into another fundamental voter issue to be aware of and effectively manage. Recall that in general, I am against liberty, against freedom of conscience, and against freedom of thought. And, in general, I am for bondage, for forced toleration of all views by the individual, and for enforced centralized thought control for all.
Todays lesson: Tolerance vs freedom of conscience
I hate completely free speech on controversial topics, which are those topics that invariably touch on conscience–one’s deeply held beliefs. On hot-button social issues important to me, unless it is speech denouncing the Bible, belittling God, advancing immoral behaviors, or is otherwise anti-God, anti-Scripture, or anti-Biblical morality, I say offensive free speech constitutes hate speech and you should keep your big trap shut! Show some toleration, you fool!
The trick for me has always been how to set society on a path of “almost” free speech, where certain viewpoints would be tolerated, thereby remaining in the realm of free expression, but other viewpoints of like kind would not be tolerated, but be banned as “intolerant.” In Europe and the US I couldn’t attack free speech on its merits; nobody would admit to being against free speech. So I kept coming back to that word “toleration” . . .
And I got creative. First I dumbed down the electorate to the point where most of them think “offensive” speech should not be legally ”tolerated” as “free” speech. Do your words hurt someone? Then your speech need not, and should not, be tolerated.
Second, I had to carefully craft a class of victims that can effectively claim offense. I wasn’t against all free speech, just speech that I found offensive, which means any speech that tended to offend those I like, and those whose behaviors I delight in. In short, I had to make sure that toleration was practiced in such a way that it did not include any deference or any public space for God or his kind. And, let’s be fair, I brilliantly succeeded.
Third, and this is my crowning achievement; I surprised even myself on this one: I had to ensure that intolerant speech got classified as a crime. And not a nice crime of the good kind, but a hate crime. I’m almost there in the US.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Imagine that. ME behind criminalizing hate, and that only for things I love. Ha ha ha ha ha.
The best way to illustrate the great advances I’ve made in the world, and wish to continue making in the United States, is the current case in Amsterdam against Dutchman Geert Wilders. As reported by AP in a piece entitled, “Dutch politician on trial on hate speech charges,” this troublemaker is rightly on trial for speaking out (hatefully and intolerantly, mind you) by “comparing Islam to Naziism and by calling for a ban on the Quran.”
Poor ol’ Geert. He used the wrong kind of speech freely.
Never mind that Wilders merely expressed his conscientious beliefs, as intolerant as they are. I’m against such speech offending me and mine anywhere and everywhere, and I want it stopped. And in Holland, I’m almost there; Geert Wilders may be heading to jail.
I want the same reaction to “free” speech in the United States. That is, I want any speech of which I disapprove stopped, if not fully criminalized, under the banner of “tolerance.” How can we do this? Easy, look for candidates who support any of the following: (1) enacting and enforcing “hate speech” laws; (2) publicly supporting only certain religious liberties; (3) entertaining the idea of curtailing or “balancing” certain news and commentary, either on television, radio, or the internet; and, (4) speaking of tolerance as a virtue, but reacting to traditional morality as a vice.
You can do it, but you have to work at it. Most candidates do not come right out and say they are for “mostly free” speech or freedom of religious expression. You have to look at their actions. For example, maybe a politician nobly and loudly cites the First Amendment rights of mosque builders, but fails to stress the First Amendment rights of a Quran burner. That’s exactly the kind of candidate I can really get fired up over.
Think I’m just blowing smoke? Here’s how you can tell I’ve been successful in pushing my agenda: imagine Geert Wilders had made the exact same statements, but about Christians and the Bible instead. Think he would be in court?
Ha ha ha ha ha.