First they came for the Cakemakers.
Sweet Cakes and demanded a wedding cake. The owner let them know that he only does cakes for men and women looking to get married. No sooner did the door close than the Oregon Department of Justice, which had already solved all the other crimes in the state, began an investigation.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, their 3 kids and their little cake shop (caramel pecan cheesecake available) had run afoul of the political establishment. "I'd rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in," Klein said, "then to see him bow down because one person complained."
Bowing down is the expected position these days. You either bow down or get fined and prosecuted to death.
The latest wave of laws on abortion and gay marriage are meant to make it impossible to hold beliefs, religious or otherwise, in contradiction to those of the state. That's a somewhat new phenomenon in the United States, but a familiar one in Europe. And the consequence of these Orwellian measures is the stratification of these societies into three categories.
The Party - This is the group whose dogma is legislated into law in a thousand formal and informal ways. Its members may belong to the government or non-profits that act as a collective political movement pushing to enact and implement even the most radical elements of that dogma. Or they may still work actual jobs. But it doesn't really make much of a difference.
Members of the Party are a minority, but they are the vanguard, the ideologically committed core that acts as the ruling class and the force for political conformity. Party Members report thought-crimes to the government, swarm as morality mobs to shame and denounce dissenters and campaign and vote for tighter restrictions and harsher penalties.
The Party is inflexibly liberal. It hasn't formed into a single group yet, but in its scattered pieces, it is the nexus of the American version of the Bolsheviks. In some European countries it already is a party with its own attached youth movements.
And one of the benefits of Party membership is virtual immunity from its own laws. Being a Party member allows you to have the racial sensitivity of Harry Reid, the sexual harassment cred of Bill Clinton and the environmental correctness of Al Gore's mansion, jets and Al Jazeera sale.
The law is enforced by Party members on the People. It is infrequently enforced by Party members against fellow Party members.
The People - For the most part the people neither fully accept nor reject the agenda of the Party. Some of it, mainly the parts about a social safety net and tolerance, sound nice to them, though they also don't care much for the implementation of it. They are concerned about the deterioration of their societies, but fail to make the connection to the liberal social policies that flood their cities with immigrants and favor criminals and dole-hounds.
As the Party gains more influence, the People have largely learned to keep their heads down, to mumble the right slogans that are repeated on the evening news and to stay out of trouble. The People care very little for politics. They distrust the agendas of everyone running for office, but they have been largely taught to vote their very short term economic interests. And while they won't call and inform on dissidents, they believe that most people who get caught up in the Party's web could have avoided it by keeping quiet.
The Ghettos - Party law applies to those within the system. It does not however venture where the law does not go.
The Ghetto is any tight-knit community with a common ethnic or belief system that maintains group solidarity and is capable of violent protests or mass civil disobedience. Some Ghettos belong to minority groups that are allied with the Party. Other Ghettos however are not. What they all have in common is that they are not really part of the country or culture.
Amish communities in Pennsylvania or Dominican communities in New York are all ghettos. So are Orthodox Jewish enclaves in upstate New York and some rogue Mormon communities in the west. These groups have little in common except that for one reason or another, they are outside the mass culture and answer to codes that transcend those of the state.
The Ghetto is not necessarily a bad place. That varies widely with its inhabitants. But it is a traditional place. It is usually more religious, much less modern and disinterested in the agenda of the Party. It is a state within a state. A small autonomous territory where people live differently.
Ghettos enjoy varying degrees of immunity based on their political alliances and their capacity for violence. The Amish, who are non-violent and not politically connected, have a limited immunity. The Muslim ghettos of Europe however are highly violent and very politically connected and therefore enjoy a great deal of immunity.
The P.C. police are not likely to storm into a Muslim cake shop because the owners refused to sell to a gay couple. And on the rare occasions when they do, the whole thing usually ends badly because both the Party and Muslims wield the core tool of enforcement, which is force.
The Party is not only run by cowards who aren't good for much except browbeating cakeshop owners who don't sell cakes for lesbian weddings, but it also needs votes from the Ghetto in order to maintain its dirty little grip on power.
This brief map of Liberal Hell is where First World countries are headed. In most of them, two sets of territories are growing.
The gentrified territory of Party members is growing, as they are vomited out by universities to move into working class areas where they then complain incessantly about apartment prices and how the area is losing its working class character.
The Ghettos are growing, as members of enclaves that are almost always patriarchal in nature have high birth rates and are willing to live in places where no one else is or to standards that no one else is willing to live by. And immigration is continually creating new enclaves and new ghettos for new groups.
The territory of the People is shrinking as they are crowded out and priced out. On the top side, their children are transformed into Party members by the educational establishment whose mission it is to recruit and indoctrinate. At the bottom, their jobs are wiped out by environmental regulations, their neighborhoods are turned into ghettos or gentrified, and they are forced off the land and into public housing or into trailer parks.
In Liberal Hell, the future belongs to the Ghetto, which is expanding much faster than the Party, because its residents have children instead of lesbian weddings. The Party knows this and is deeply in denial about it. It spends its time terrorizing intolerant wedding cake shops instead. The only real question is which Ghetto will it be?
In Europe, the demographics point to the triumph of the Muslim Ghetto over the Eurocrats, thereby repeating the Islamist victories in the Arab Spring over Arab Socialists in the Middle East. In the United States, there is no such simple victory, but if the demographics keep trending the way that they do, the United States will become part of Mexico with the same politics and public safety.
That may not however be the end of the story. Anyone can form a Ghetto and some among the People may find that they have no other survival strategy but to form them, thereby completing the country's balkanization and disintegration.
The Mormons came out of a small religious movement that exploded into huge numbers over a small period of time. The modern Utah is no longer a Mormon Ghetto and has lost most of its immunity from the political establishment, but in a period of social and economic unrest it is not at all hard to imagine that some other presently obscure group, or a dozen of them, will form its own close knit communities bound by religious or ethnic solidarity. And if they make it into the millions, then the disintegration of the United States will rush forward at terrifying speed.
If the People cannot defeat the Party, then the Government Class will go on consuming the Working Class leaving the People with few options except the Ghetto. In a society where the law is breaking down, the only law that matters is who you know. That leaves membership in either the Party or the Ghetto, either the State or the state within a state.
Liberal Hell is unsustainable. The question is not whether it will collapse, but when and how. If it isn't overthrown politically, then it will melt down into the usual vicious little tyranny and then a dynasty and then a wall covered in graffiti being torn down by the angry generations who were forced to live under it. But the modern American and European versions won't last that long because they run under multiculturalism. And that means the Eurocrats and American Liberals won't last long enough to watch a tank ram into Congress or see their wall come tumbling down. It's the Ghetto that will take everything they have built and make it their own.
The final course isn't set yet. The People may still wake up and the Party Members may find themselves shining shoes and writing bitter poetry about the bourgeois that no one reads. But if the People don't wake up, then the future is not a cake shop that caters to lesbian weddings by law, it's a cake shop that doesn't follow any laws and that sells cocaine under the table.
I do not think the cake shop was the best of opening arguments in your exposé, a cake shop owner is not asked to vent his personal beliefs but to sell cakes for cash. He might not personally like gays, Jews, blacks or who-evers but he is not asked for his opinion nor to marry them so his, call it moral stance or bias, was totally out of line and worthy of legal persecution.ReplyDelete
Mind you, I am not debating the rest of the article.
Nonsense. A business owner has no obligation to do business with anyone they choose not to. I'll bet if the cake maker refused to make a KKK wedding cake for a Klan wedding you'd find THAT reasonable.Delete
And NO, Not comparing gays to Klansmen, I'm pointing out that you can't allow one and not the other.
He's not asked to vent his beliefs. He is asked to follow them. Not the beliefs of the state.ReplyDelete
I have to confess, I fear if it were a Palestinian immigrant that refused to sell a cake for a Jewish wedding, our opinions may have been different.Delete
As far as the rest of this article I would contend that the ghettos have already reached the suburbs, and the inner city ghettos have already declared their independence from the State. In the suberbs you now have people working for practical slave wages, while the rebel forces now independent within the cities being subsidized by the state.
I don't know a single Jew mishugana enough to order a wedding cake for a Jewish wedding from an Arab, let alone one claiming to be a Palestinian.Delete
The cake shop is the best example because nobody should be forced to sell cakes to anyone for any reason. Once you are ordered to sell cakes to someone you don't like you are a slave. The power that the Party has over the People is only different from what a slave-owner of old had over the slaves in that if the People don't do anything they can't be made to do something...scratch that, there is that newfangled Affordable Healthcare thing these days from what I hear.ReplyDelete
No one is forced to sell cakes to anyone. But no one is or should be denied the opportunity to buy anything from anyone. Subtle semantic distinction,maybe, but important.ReplyDelete
BTW, everything else you say here is just as applicable to any extremist government, which is hardly what we have currently.ReplyDelete
Don't count on the people waking up. The alarm bells have been ringing for years, and they're still snoozing. I'm counting on the traditionalists to save us. All they wanibex to be left alone.ReplyDelete
The obligation to sell to anyone is not at issue here. Presumably the cake maker would have sold cupcakes to people he assumed were gay. Had he refused, there would have been sanctions, and probably rightly. (If not, why not allow signs, "We don't sell to (insert group here)"?) What was offensive was forcing him to perform his trade in a manner that violated his beliefs. An Orthodox barber should not be forced to cut a woman's hair; but he shouldn't be allowed to refuse to sell her shampoo.ReplyDelete
Which means he is your slave who must do as you tell him. Only you are too much of a miserable coward to tell him directly (since he would rightly apply his fist to your jaw), so you get your thugs (the cops) and your smooth talkers (the bureacrats) to justify it.Delete
You are such a hateful little man, you know you dont deserve even the slightest bit of your freedoms, yah?
Absolutely correct. Liberals are only a hairs breadth from Nazis ideologically.Delete
See what I mean.ReplyDelete
When the spontaneous punch in the nose left the society things hit the downward slope. No immediate consequences means assholes breed like lesbian rabbits.ReplyDelete
In a truly free society, the cake maker should be able to stand on his beliefs and the gay couple should be able to refuse to spend their money in his shop ever again. If they choose to ask all their friends to boycott the sweet shop, and the friends comply, depending on the number, the cake maker might suffer from reduced customers. At that point the cake maker can stand or capitulate–his choice yet again.ReplyDelete
This is the process of checks and balance that works in a free society. Once the World State is allowed to step in to force anything, either the shop to sell or the customers to buy, we are a few short steps away from becoming a society under totalitarianism wherein everything that isn’t illegal is mandatory.
I think it's a great article about the coming nightmare.ReplyDelete
It shouldn't matter whether the patrons were gay, straight, short, tall, or looked strikingly similar to the bully that killed the shop owner's family pet when he was a lad.ReplyDelete
The shop owner, to be truly free, should have the right to sell or not sell his cakes to whomever he damned well pleases.
"Rights" protect us from the GOVERNMENT and HARM from others. There is no harm if a patron has to visit another cake shop, whether it's because the owner refuses or because the shop doesn't make the patron's particular favorite.
Exactly. And thats why we have laws against monopolies or racketeering. As long as men are free to compete honestly then who cares what some random store owner chooses to do. The only time this becomes a problem is when the state is used to pass laws that make it imoossible to compete fairly.Delete
I guess having that once familiar sign, "We reserve the right to refuse service" is now illegal, eh?ReplyDelete
This diseased America has inoperable cancer. Dennis Prager has a great saying. "There are only two types of people, decent and indecent."ReplyDelete
The indecent are on a run, and the clock has almost expired. Time for a reset.
Meema is right on, the free market is the ultimate dispenser of justice. The state gives more justice to some, less to others, depending on their aggrieved status.ReplyDelete
Anonymous, that is indeed the exact pointReplyDelete
So why are you still there dude? You must see where this is heading. Theres a time to fold, a time to bet, and a time to run like hell.Delete
Buzz got exactly what I meant. If I don't like pregnant one-legged Nicaraguan lesbians but adore blonde, blue-eyed leather-clad neo-Nazis I should be able to discriminate against the first group and give out my stuff to the second group for free. After all, if I refused to fornicate with the first group but do so with abandon with the second one the Party will not bat an eye, but just try to decide who you can sell your cupcakes to!ReplyDelete
There is no subtle distinction that brugio points out. Nobody has any right to anything any private individual possesses. The government is not allowed to discriminate because everybody should be equal under the law. The party wants to tell you what you NEED to do. Don't let them restrict you from buying 32 oz drinks and don't let them restrict you from selling them or not selling them to anyone you wish.
So far the discussion has centered upon the action of the shop owner and the state. But what about the behavior of the lesbian couple? At a long past time their behavior would have been characterized as two perverts, or Queers, trying to act and be accepted as normal people. We've come a long way baby.ReplyDelete
Liberal Hell - Fantastic assessment and narrative on thought crime in Amerika today. You should be published sir.ReplyDelete
I'm not feeling particularly brilliant today but I wonder if the commenters think a Jewish butcher should be required to sell pork to those whose beliefs differ from his just because everyone should have the "right" to buy anything anyplace?ReplyDelete
Only if he had pork for sale. A more accurate example would be forcing a Jewish bookstore to sell holy books to people they know will disparage or disgrace those books.Delete
In Liberal Hell, the future belongs to the Ghetto, which is expanding much faster than the Party, because its residents have children instead of lesbian weddings. The Party knows this and is deeply in denial about it.ReplyDelete
Yes Daniel, but it is irrelevant to the Party b/c the goal is to force compliance and they think they can achieve this goal before the birthrate problem catches up to them.
Currently, I am reading Ben Shapiro’s Bullies and he puts it this way, “Think about politics in terms of religious outreach. Conservatives are like Jehovah Witnesses, going door to door, trying to convince people of the truth of their teachings. Liberals are like radical Muslims, toppling governments and installing shariah law, then forcibly converting enormous masses of the population.”
I keep hoping America wakes up before it’s too late. However I think we have come too close to resembling Europe and they never woke up before it was too late to escape WWI & WWII. The difference is there is no America in the shadows to rescue us from hell.
Meira, OF COURSE the Jewish butcher should not be required to sell pork or for that matter even kosher chicken to anyone he doesn't like. The Party has so messed with the minds of normal, law-abiding people that they think it's a crime to discriminate against anyone they want as private individuals.ReplyDelete
How do you think the Party got so many to believe that an "undocumented immigrant" guilty of not only illegal entry, but identity theft and seventeen other criminal offenses has the right to stay, but you, a law-abiding citizen have no right to refuse to sell something to any particular individual? They have defined a kind of morality that has no basis in natural law and so many good people, like slowly boiled frogs, have accepted that morality, at least partially, as their own.
Meira Lettieri Kingberg said...ReplyDelete
"...I wonder if the commenters think a Jewish butcher should be required to sell pork to those whose beliefs differ from his just because everyone should have the "right" to buy anything anyplace?"
Let's substitute the Jewish butcher for a Muslim butcher in this question and we are likely to better understand that the answer will be determined by the liberal's double standard definition of tolerance/fairness/equality.
This shouldn't be so complicated. A business owner decides what products he will sell. He should sell all the products he carries to everyone, but he doesn't have to carry every conceivable item or create special items for people demanding them. If he only carries two cakes - one cake that says Happy Birthday and one cake that has a bride and groom on the top, then that's all he sells. It's not much of a cake shop, and he'll probably go out of business. But that's his problem. If you want something else, go to another shop, or make your own.ReplyDelete
There's a Walgreens on the corner where I live. Sometimes I need something they don't carry. I don't call a lawyer and try to force them to carry the product I want. I go to CVS or buy it on Amazon.
" "I'd rather have my kids see their dad stand up for what he believes in," Klein said, "then to see him bow down because one person complained."ReplyDelete
Bowing down is the expected position these days. You either bow down or get fined and prosecuted to death."
Toda raba and ko HaKavod, Daniel. This is one of your best articles. I've said that about many of your pieces but this truly is the best.
It literally brought tears to my eyes and also encouragement to someone living in the shadow of this hell.
part of the Agenda 21 plan is to have a "sustainable population"-down to about 1 1/2 billion-(easy neck to step on). So, between abortion, and promoting gays you reduce the overall population.ReplyDelete
I do have the right to refuse service to any one for any reason I see fit. That is the way I run my real estate business and it has been ok so far. The govt disagrees, as they have begun enforcement of the CRA again, forcing banks to lend at favorable terms to unqualified borrowers. I guess the housing crisis wasn't bad enough the first time around.ReplyDelete
"What they all have in common is that they are not really part of the country or culture."ReplyDelete
It is the ghetto cultures who must fit with the rest of the nation, not vice versa. They make themselves guests. Hosts cater to guests somewhat but guests should not dictate how the householder runs his home.
"This shouldn't be so complicated. A business owner decides what products he will sell. He should sell all the products he carries to everyone, but he doesn't have to carry every conceivable item or create special items for people demanding them."
Why should the business owner sell all the products he carries to everyone? What if he doesn't want to? A free man or woman has to be compelled by the government to sell to those he doesn't like? It's his business loss if he forgoes a profit, what's it to you or to the government?
Excellent article your ExcellencyReplyDelete
I am thinking of Soviet history, since it is always instructive to regard an entity driven by pure power politics without any regard to morality.
The Soviet Union had 3 economic lives. The first one ran from the revolution until WWII. During the first era the system ran on what they could steal from the Russian people. First, the properties stolen from the old aristocracy and the middle class. By the 1930s they were stealing from the peasants and leaving them to starve.
After WWII, when the US bailed them out., they were free to loot Eastern Europe for a Generation. But, by the 1970s they were running on fumes.
They lucked out when the US fucked up the Saudi Oil embargo of 1974, by inflating the dollar. That allowed them to sell commodities particularly oil and gold at bubble prices.
In 1981 Reagan and Volcker popped the bubble. By the end of the decade the Soviet Union was done.
Our party has a number of obstacles in its way.
First, they are so anxious to destroy the US productive capacities to "save the environment", that they might not leave enough to steal.
Second, they are not sufficiently ruthless. They never could pull of a Ukraine famine. of course, the American peasantry is to well armed to give the party much chance to really loot.
Third, nobody believes their bullshit but the members of the outer-party. It won't motivate anyone to fight the fight they need. Their control over the military is tenuous, because the military knows how much the party hates them. They have no access to religion except for environmentalism.
I don't see them being able to pull this off for very long.
As a (very visible) Jew, I would certainly be insulted if a store-owner told me "No Jews allowed", but that doesn't change my belief that he has a right to do so. In fact he has the right to insult me directly as long as it doesn't get to the point of harassment (say, following me around for an hour in the street and calling me names).ReplyDelete
This mess started in the '50s and '60s with anti-discrimination laws and once you let that foot in the door, all freedom is lost.
Once you as a businessman seek a license from the State to do business, you become subject to their regulations. You give them jurisdiction to fine you by applying for the license. That is the how the tyranny works, but few will fight that system and say "I don't need no stinking license"; I'm an American.ReplyDelete
It was not always thus. Hire an attorney that will fight for your Constitutional rights.
1 Two women walk into a cake store to order a wedding cake. They might be sisters or the bride and the maid of honor. They pay and when the cake is ready they pick it up.ReplyDelete
2 Two women walk into a cake store to order a wedding cake. They say,"We're LESBIANS, we want a cake with TWO WOMEN on it, and you WILL sell it to us or we'll TELL ON YOU!
I wrote above: "they are so anxious to destroy the US productive capacities to "save the environment", that they might not leave enough to steal. ". Here the self-defeating character of the modern watermelons is illustrated:ReplyDelete
"The Monterey Shale formation, stretching 1,750 square miles from southern to central California, constitutes two-thirds of the country’s total estimated shale oil reserves. That’s an estimated 15.4 billion barrels, or four times as much as the Bakken Shale reserves in North Dakota, whose exploitation can now be seen from space.
"But the green lobby will prove a formidable opponent to the oil and gas companies jostling for a piece of this giant pie. It is already hard at work trying to keep California’s newly recoverable energy reserves in the ground: Two powerhouse lobbies are suing the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Conservation to prevent further exploration of the Monterey Shale and impose stricter regulations on fracking."
You can't steal it before it exists.
To borrow from a previous commenter, in today's society it's quickly becoming this:ReplyDelete
You can either bow down or bend over. The "choice" is yours.
does it really matter? only three days supply of food in usa. gonna be a lot of dead - mostly liberals.ReplyDelete
Not a liberal hell - but a leftist hell.ReplyDelete
On social matters I am an extreme liberal. I don't care what you do to yourself - it's your body and your life. I only concern myself when somebody's action interferes in the affairs of another
^ so for example, an innocent baby that can survive outside the womb?ReplyDelete
What about genital mutilation? We should be able to cut little babies' clitorises off inside the womb, because its our bodies. We don't want nobody interfering in our bodies, that little piece was just too damn heavy. Yes, a freeking liberal hell, and you're the perfect commie if you can fight against your ideals (and say you really believe in ideals described by a word that means the same exact freeking thing) and believe in them at once. You're missing the point of everything anyways; because Americans kill their babies, they deserve to be taken over by Mexicans, and Muslims. Don't like it? Well, you can't your abortion and your American people too.
As for the article, 100% agree, as with every other article you've ever read, and would add that people also join ghettos to find the identity they've been robbed of, which your writing seems to renew. G-d bless you Daniel Greefield.
(I'm that guy you converted away from liberalism at 18. Still going strong, and hopefully expanding the company to New York this quarter. If I go, nothing would honor me more than to meet you in person.)