The Compulsory Approval Doctrine
‘Social justice’ means totalitarian power for the Thought Police.
If you want to control what people think, you must first control what they are allowed to say. The totalitarians who control our education system have been as “successful” as Mao in terms of their indoctrination program. If everyone who teaches on a university campus is required to conform to a particular ideology, no student will learn to think outside the confines of that ideology, unless the student is a courageous rebel determined to defy the system.
Less than 20 years ago, the media turned the murder of Matthew Shepard into a latter-day morality play about the evils of “homophobia.” In truth, Shepard’s death might better be understood as teaching the lesson of what happens to naïve college kids who hang around with dopehead hoodlums. The two punks who murdered Shepard — Aaron McKinney, 22, and Russell Henderson, 21 — were not Republicans, nor were they members of the “Religious Right.” They were just a couple of petty criminals, “lazy little crankheads,” as they were called by Matt Mickelson, who owned the bar in which the two killers met Shepard. In 2013, gay journalist Stephen Jimenez published The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths About the Murder of Matthew Shepard, casting doubt on the claims that homophobia was the prime motive for Shepard’s murder. Yet at the time of Shepard’s death — in 1998, when I was working as an assistant national editor at The Washington Times — the media reported the story as if there was no doubt about the motive. At nationally televised candlelight vigils, Shepard was portrayed as a sort of saintly martyr for the cause of gay rights. From this media-made myth of Shepard’s death as a “hate crime” there emerged an educational regime, both on university campuses and in K-12 public schools, of “zero tolerance” toward criticism of homosexuality, manifested as an “anti-bullying” crusade.
Because I’m old enough to remember all this, and was editing news coverage of this controversy as it happened in real time, I understand exactly why so many young people nowadays go out of their way to avoid saying or doing anything that might give the impression of “homophobia.” Excuse me for putting that word inside quotation marks, but what exactly does this word mean? Like “racism,” it has been applied with a broad brush, indiscriminately, so that even Donald Trump — nominated by the first Republican National Convention to feature an openly gay speaker, high-tech billionaire Peter Thiel — is accused of “homophobia.” Furthermore, I have always loathed the pseudo-diagnostic implications of “homophobia,” the idea that anyone who disapproves of homosexual behavior (or opposes the gay-rights agenda) is motivated by a mental illness, an irrational fear of gay people. This is a perfect 180-degree reversal of the situation that prevailed when homosexuality itself was considered a mental illness, before the American Psychiatric Association’s then-controversial decision to revise the DSM-II in 1973.
Everybody’s crazy in their own way, I suppose, but the word “homophobia” conjures up negative stereotypes — the playground bully, the Westboro Baptist Church crowd, the overcompensating closet cases like Ted Haggard, etc. — and in doing so, achieves the Thought Police purpose of silencing all criticism of anything protected within the LGBTQ rainbow spectrum.
In the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, the Thought Police (Thinkpol in Newspeak) are the secret police of the superstate, Oceania, who are charged with uncovering and punishing “thoughtcrime” and thought-criminals. The Thinkpol use psychological methods and omnipresent surveillance (e.g. telescreens) to search, find, monitor, and arrest citizens of Oceania who would challenge the status quo — the authority of the Party and of Big Brother — even if only with a thought. (Wikipedia)
Inculcating an attitude of fear — teaching young people to be afraid to express their own opinions contradicting progressive “social justice” rhetoric, or even to mention unpopular facts — is the goal of the 21st-century Thought Police. Laws and institutional policies prohibiting “discrimination” and “harassment” have been interpreted as abridging First Amendment protection of free speech, so that any student who says something that might be deemed racist, sexist or homophobic could be subjected to disciplinary procedures. In the process, young people are required to pretend to believe things that are clearly false, as was clear at a “Young Feminist” conference in 2015:
There was no shortage of queer feminism when the [National Young Feminist Leadership Conference] convened this past weekend at the Crystal City Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Virginia. The opening session Saturday featured two speakers urging the young feminists to reclaim “Our Sexual and Gender Identities.” One of those speakers, lesbian activist Darlene Nipper, gave a speech that was an emotional moment for blue-haired queer feminist Michelle, who gushed on Twitter: “Glad my tears from Darlene Nipper’s speech didn’t ruin my eyeliner.” Nipper was followed by a transgender atheist from the University of South Carolina known as Rukia Brooks, a member of the university’s Feminist Collective. The inclusion of such persons (“Rukia” was born male and is in a pre-surgical stage of the “transition” process) in feminist ranks has been somewhat controversial. Radical lesbians like Professor Sheila Jeffreys and Professor Janice Raymond have especially complained about demands that they accept “transwomen” as valid substitutes for actual women. Yet the agenda of Feminist Majority’s conference for college girls was all about being “inclusive,” so the fact that Rukia Brooks has a penis did not disqualify him/her from the ranks of women victimized by the oppressive patriarchy. . . .
According to Professor [Judith] Butler’s doctrine, a person with a penis and XY chromosomes — genetically male — can escape the gender binary and be just as much a “woman” as any person with XX chromosomes and a vagina. At least that’s what Professor Butler seems to be saying in her opaque scholastic prose, and it’s how her theory has been widely interpreted by delusional young people like Rukia Brooks. They invent new identities for themselves (“genderqueer” and “demisexual” are among the proliferating labels) and then claim to be victims of oppression (e.g., “transphobia”) if others do not recognize their self-declared status. At George Washington University, conservative students in the campus chapter of Young America’s Foundation (YAF) were labeled a “hate group” for refusing to play along with this victimhood game. University officials demand that YAF leaders undergo “training sessions” to teach them “about gender identities and sexualities,” and the group could be banned from campus in they don’t comply.
Totalitarian thought-control programs are necessary to 21st-century academia because the dogma promulgated on campus so clearly contradicts common sense. . . .
You can click here to read the rest of that, in which I also explain how a “new dispensation, which we might call the Compulsory Approval Doctrine, has the consequence of abolishing religious liberty.” What the Bible says about sexual behavior and “gender identity” (e.g., Genesis 1:27, Deuteronomy 22:5, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26, etc.) is obvious enough, and we may argue as to how Christians ought to apply these truths in their daily lives, but we cannot inflict punishment on Christians for believing the Bible without abrogating the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty.
However, because so many young people have been indoctrinated — catechized, as it were — in the quasi-religion of the “social justice” cult, most of them are incapable of thinking outside the politically controlled parameters of 21st-century progressive belief. Nor have students been equipped with the historical knowledge and rhetorical skills necessary to argue effectively against the claims of “Third Wave” feminist proponents of Queer Theory.
At elite Boston University (annual tuition $50,240), faculty and students paid tribute to the late Queer Theory pioneer Professor Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick with a “freewheeling discussion” of Professor Sedgwick’s 1991 essay “How to Bring Your Kids Up Gay.” What is absent from such celebrations — what is effectively prohibited on 21st-century university campuses— is any opposition or criticism of these bizarre manifestations of academic lunacy. However “freewheeling” the organizers of the Boston University claimed their seminar was, we may be certain that no Christian was permitted to speak, nor does any feminist on campus nowadays ever say a good word about men, marriage, motherhood, or capitalism —feminists are against all these things.
This is how we find 23-year-old Riley J. Dennis — an “intersectional feminist” who is “also super queer (transfeminine lesbian to be specific)” — providing a YouTube video lecture on why dating preferences are “discriminatory”:
Riley J. Dennis argues that anyone who doesn’t want to date a transgender person is guilty of an unjust prejudice — you’re a hateful bigot if you prefer to date normal people, rather than dating … well, Riley J. Dennis, for example.
Would you want your son or daughter to date him/“her”? Probably not. And yet if you disapprove of your child dating an atheist intersectional feminist like Riley J. Dennis — a “pacifist . . . socialist, anti-capitalist” who voted for Hillary Clinton— progressives will condemn you for “transmisogyny.”
Riley J. Dennis is a lesbian, and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.