The NYT has a story on Paul Cobb, a white supremacist who is buying up land in a small town (24 people) in North Dakota, purportedly to make way for a community of like-minded jerks. More power to him (kidding!—but pun intended).
Is this a newsworthy story? Yes, but for different reasons than the NYT probably thinks. It’s newsworthy because the story is interesting and unexpected. In a culture so hyper-sensitive about race as ours is, an outspoken white supremacist buying up land to create his own little community makes for a good read. But this is NOT newsworthy in the sense of it being an important story of public concern or consequence. If anything, it illustrates the opposite—the degree to which way our society has so clearly swung against racial bigotry and insensitivity: The city council’s stated “nuclear option” is to dismantle the town rather than let Mr Cobb stock the local population with white supremacists who would vote in a new government; locals have already expressed unconditional support for the lone black citizen; Christians are knocking on Cobb’s door and evangelizing him; others are offering to buy back the land he’s purchased. It turns out that social pressure can be (and is being) quite strong.
The fact is, this story buried the truly consequential lede—that Mr Cob left Canada because he is wanted on charges of “promoting hatred.” Yeah, of course he’s promoting hatred. Boo. The problem is that this is a fundamental free speech issue, and should not be illegal. But that’s the way the winds of tolerance are blowing.
I checked Wikipedia, and it turns out that the government has not (yet) seen fit to bestow on white supremacists a coveted protected status—currently available based on race, sex, age, religion, etc. (Sexual orientation and various gender confusions are waiting in the wings, no doubt followed by all sorts of wonderful categories like “has a mustache” or “prefers skim milk to whole” or “is sexually attracted to wrist watches.”
But why should anyone be allowed to discriminate against me for wanting to wear my watch somewhere besides my wrist (if you know what I mean)? Shouldn’t the government protect my right to work at the Society for the Abolishment of Mustaches even though I happen to have one myself and don’t intend to shave it to meet my prospective employer’s job requirements? Somebody needs to arrest the president of that Society for “promoting hatred.”
In terms of social pressure, already Christians aren’t allowed to publicly hold views that are counter to the current mainstream approved opinions—views on human sexuality and public morality, primarily. The trajectory has been set, and the government coercion locomotive is around the corner, picking up speed. In some places it’s already here: In Arizona, a wedding photographer may not refuse services to couples (gay or otherwise) who want pictures that portray gay marriage in a positive light. No word from the court yet on whether the photographer can refuse a polyamorous foursome or the guy who wants naked pics with his dog. Heck, what if Paul Cobb wants to have a photo shoot with his supremacist buddies? At this point, the liberal brain gets so tangled up with inconsistencies that it knots up and shuts down.
posted 8 / 30 / 2013