The Inquisition of the Catholic Church from the 16th to the 18th centuries has nothing on the Progressive inquisition.
The Catholic Inquisition
The Catholic Inquisition began in the Middle Ages. It’s mission was to root out any errors in Catholic theology. Since the Church dominated Europe, it basically controlled all theological thought. It was the French Inquisition that administered trial that condemned Joan of Arc to burn at the stake, and it was the Italian Inquisition that sentenced Galileo to home arrest for the rest of his life.
The Inquisition was spurred on after Catholic Spain kicked out all the Jews and Muslims in 1492. The Jews and the Muslims could stay if they were converted to Catholicism. (In fact, one of saints and Doctors of the Church, St. Theresa of Avila, was the daughter of one of the Jewish persons who converted.)
However, some Jews only converted in a deceptive manner. They were Catholics on the outside but remained faithful to Judaism on the inside. They were called marronos. Many of these marronos rose to high positions in the Church’s hierarchy. It was the mission of the Spanish Inquisition discover all these impostors and kick them out of the Church and out of the country.
In the process of forcing theological and philosophical thinkers to be in conformity to the Church, the Inquisition – some argue – killed the renaissance in Spain and did much to retard the progress of the renaissance in all Europe. The Church’s main enemy was the freedom of thought.
This European taboo against the freedom of thought and speech led Thomas Jefferson to write these words (words which are enshrined in the Jefferson Memorial in D.C):
I have sworn eternal hostility to all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.
The Progressive Inquisition
In America, the Progressive (liberal) Inquisition started with the Civil Rights Act of 1963 and the consequential Watts riots. (“All right, we got a little, now we want it all!”)
After the Civil Rights Act, the movement to suppress free speech began, and it has increase until the present day. Various ideas, especially (what was perceived to be) white racism in any form, were strongly suppressed and many expressions were even made illegal. White racism was seen as the cardinal American sin, the worst of all evils and the cause of nearly all of our social ills. The scapegoating of white Americans began.
The history of the scapegoat
The term “scapegoating” comes from the ancient Jewish ritual where the sins of the people were put on a sacrificial goat, and then the goat was driven over a cliff or slaughtered. Thus the sins of the people were forgiven, and they were pure again.
Scapegoating has been a common practice throughout history. All the sins — and all the evil — of a tribe or nation are projected onto one group of people. Then the scapegoated people are denigrated and persecuted. The persecuting group then see themselves as being morally pure.
A good example this scapegoating occurred in in Nazi Germany. The scapegoats were the Jewish people and the morally pure people were the Aryans.
The modern scapegoat
In America, the scapegoat has been European (white) Americans. All the sins of America – specifically racism – have been projected onto white Americans. Then African (black) Americans have declared themselves free of the sin of racism, because they are a minority and don’t have power.
Since racism is seen as the biggest sin in America and African Americans are innocent of this sin, they are generally innocent of all sin (these other sins are seen as minor compared to the cardinal sin of racism). These “minor” sins include assault, murder, and theft. (Besides, the scapegoat caused the social and economic conditions which, in turn, caused these minor sins.) In this way blacks are seen as being morally pure and whites as being evil. Progressive African Americans can tell themselves and the world:
“White racists caused everything bad. Without them, we would live in paradise.”
Louis Farrakhan and the early Malcolm X took this belief a step further, saying that blacks were perfect and whites were subhuman.
The scapegoat creates the Progressive inquisition
Thus began the Progressive inquisition.
In the 1960s, the feminists saw the effectiveness of this inquisition. With the goal to increase of women’s rights, they made the neurotic claim that they too were pure. Just as blacks were enslaved and discriminated against, so were they! (But women were enslaved and discriminated for 10,000 years — the beginning of civilization – and blacks were oppressed for only 400 years. This made women even bigger victims.)
All the evils of the society, and the evils of all human civilization, were now projected onto the modern scapegoat: men.
The specific evil traits of the male character that was scapegoated was his predatory (hunter) nature, his aggressiveness, his sense of physical and intellectual superiority, and his violence. The neurotic belief was that:
If men were just like women, it would be a good world.
Thus women were historical victims of men. But here’s the catch:
For political power, the feminists allied themselves with the civil rights movement. They supported increased rights for all suppressed people, since they were one of them. And since the civil rights movement proclaimed the innocence and the moral purity of African Americans, black men could not be guilty of any sin, including the sin of oppressing women. And women could not be guilty of white racism, for they too were victims of the oppressor: white men.
Thus women are innocent of the worst sin in America: racism. And thus they are generally innocent of all (minor) sins, which are now projected onto the scapegoat. These minor sins include irresponsible fornication (with all its STDs), adultery, pornography, out-of-wedlock births, abortions, welfare fraud, and false accusations: “It’s all men’s fault.”
Note: An antithesis to the woman’s movement is the behavior of women, themselves. Historically, women have been the benefactors of an the products of these evil men: the food that the men grew, the coal that the miners dug up, the technology that men invented, the philosophy that men developed, and the wars that men fought. Even when men were militarily aggressive, women – including the mothers of the soldiers – were supportive and gladly received the bounty of the conquering tribes. For instance, German women were wildly enthusiastic for Hitler until his defeat.
Another feminine behavior that is an antithesis to the woman’s movement is that, as evil as men are, women want to marry them. They want men to give them children and then help support their families.
In fact, historically men have been the main provider for the needs of the family. And whom do many of these women marry? None other than the alpha male, the exact person who the feminists condemn! They marry the tall, strong, aggressive, wealthy, hard-working, competent man who often has confidence in himself. And when these men die before their wives, guess who gets their money? The more feminine men are left to get their secondary choices of a mate, strum their guitars, and shed their sensitive tears.
With these groups neurotically claiming their moral purity, who then was left to be the modern day witch? White men. Thus all the moral imperfections of all women and of all African Americans (including all people of mixed race) were projected on the European-American (white) male. He was responsible for all the evil and all the imperfections of the society.
The white male is also responsible for all the imperfections of the individual minority personality. For example, white male racism is the main cause of African American crime and poverty and it is the cause of the 70% out-of-wedlock births (that is, many black men taking no responsibility for raising their children). The cause of black men practicing irresponsible fornication and irresponsible parenting is blamed on white men: “Somehow, it’s all their fault.”
The political effect of this neurotic belief is the called the Progressive Inquisition:
Any statement that is perceived to contradict the beliefs of the civil rights movement or the woman’s liberation movement is now strictly prohibited. If a person – specifically a white male – utters such a statement he can be socially ostracized, professionally harmed, or even convicted and jailed.
Here are some real-life examples of these taboo statements:
A supervisor at a government job tried to fire an African American man who was doing virtually nothing for his pay check. The supervisor was ostracized by all the blacks in the department and his career advancement stopped. He was labeled “a racist.”
A military sergeant made a negative comment to an African American soldier. He was labeled a “possible racist” in his records and this career advancement stopped. It is this kind of fear that stopped fellow officers from reporting an assertive Muslim fellow officer, Nidal Hasan, before he shot and killed 13 fellow soldiers and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas in November, 2009.
A white male was at a ball game with a long-term friend, who was a white female. In a discussion about Bill Cosby the man said to his friend, “I wonder why these women waited 30 years to report the sexual abuse?” The woman became furious and screamed at her (ex) friend, “You mean that if I said that I was sexually abused 30 years ago, you wouldn’t believe me?” The friendship ended.
At a Christmas party a white male made a casual statement that he thought the U.S. needed to have better border control. He was immediately surrounded by a group of white women who demanded that he explain his immigration views and denounced him for his being a seemingly racist. The man never went to a party again where these women were there.
A white student at a racially diverse high school thought that using the “N” word was cool, since all the black students used it. She used it once and was socially ostracized for being a racist.
A student at a university got a low mark in his course in sociology because he wrote some conservative ideas in his papers. (It is generally perceived that the Progressive Inquisition has taken over most of the colleges and universities in the country.)
The Progressive Inquisition Expands
The Progressive inquisition was so successful in suppressing free thought and furthering the goal of the civil rights and the woman movements, that the idea of having an inquisition barring oppositional ideas was taken up by other groups, including illegal immigrants, lawyers, and Muslims. Thus now we have the immigrant con, the lawyer con, the minority con, and the Islamic con.
With this inquisition, now there is a common trend in the U.S. society that prohibits the following thoughts and speech:
Any comment opposing open borders for the U.S., especially any restriction on the illegal Hispanic invasion.
Any criticism of any immigrant group.
Any criticism of any group of people, as a whole. Any generalization about any group whatsoever is prohibited, especially any criticism of a minority.
Any criticism of African Americans as a group.
Any criticism of any black or multi-racial individual.
Any criticism of women.
Any statement by a white male that is perceived to be against the woman’s movement.
Any criticism of lawyers, who often claim their intellectual and moral superiority. (Many lawyers make the neurotic claim that, because of their superior ethics and brilliance, they should earn ten times the hourly wage of the average American worker, and should get a cut of virtually every financial transaction in the country.)
Any criticism of Islam or the prophet Mohammed.
Any opposition to the belief that all groups of people have the right to criticize and denounce white men (the scapegoat), especially white Catholic men. (Catholic men – especially Catholic theologians – are among strongest opponents of the right of women to kill one million unborn children a year.)
Any criticism of people who denounce and denigrate the system, the government, or free enterprise, since these institutions were created and are sustained by evil white men (including the despised dead white men).
The lines are drawn
The lines in the moral battle in America are now clear:
Morally pure illegal immigrants, African Americans, mixed race people, women, lawyers, Progressives, Muslims, intellectual elites, Progressive political commentators, and all minorities are on one side — and evil white men (especially working class white men) are on the other.
On one side we have morally pure people and on the other side we have a goat with all the sins of the pure people written on his back, a goat that needs to be pushed over the cliff.
Ladies and Gentlemen: This is the Progressive inquisition!