Faux Liberalism’s Politics of “Hate”

By James F. Tracy

Massachusetts Representative Edward Markey’s “Hate Crimes Reporting Act of 2014” proposes to exert Congressional authority over mass media employing speech that may “encourage … hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.” In contrast to establishment liberal Cass Sunstein’s proposed “cognitive infiltration” of unorthodox research communities questioning official narratives, Markey’s recommendation straightforwardly lays the groundwork for the criminalization of free speech—and prospectively any other intellectual or journalistic endeavor the state deems undesirable. Indeed, Markey’s power play is an especially compelling—though increasingly commonplace—example of despotism masquerading as liberalism, one that no honestly free society would seriously consider.

Yet what increasingly passes for liberalism would scarcely be recognizable by those who originally conceived such a philosophy. Traditional liberalism envisaged by John Locke and his contemporaries recognized liberty as arising from the inherent sovereignty of individuals in their intellectual, professional, and property-related affairs. Such a genuinely fundamental liberalism distinguished how reason and debate within a functioning marketplace of ideas were capable of arriving at sound conclusions and, overall, truth.

In the spirit of John Milton’s Areopagitica, all voices capable of articulating a stance on a given topic were anticipated to engage in this journey toward truth. A solid faith in human reason’s capacity to recognize and uphold truth vis-à-vis suspicion toward unchecked political power is evident in America’s founding documents and governmental separation of powers. Along these lines, individual liberty was acknowledged as an essential component of popular sovereignty.

The public quiescence toward such extreme constraints on thought and speech as those proposed by Sunstein and Markey suggest just how far the nation has wandered—and in certain notable instances been dragged from—its true civic moorings. The classical liberal ideal and faith in the free exchange of ideas has long been incompatible with the economic and political system under which the United States presently functions. This overall malaise can be traced to two historic events.

First, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 forfeited the nation’s financial system based on free enterprise to a handful of bankers who, through such legislation, were empowered to create recessions and depressions at will. Second, the National Security Act of 1947 introduced a multi-tiered of platform of shadow governance with the capacity to carry out both foreign and domestic clandestine operations, including assassinations. These key arrangements together undermined the genuine possibility of both individual enfranchisement and popular sovereignty.

Most of today’s “liberal” political leaders and members of the glitterati who have established themselves based on their purported attunement to the cries from the ghetto will unswervingly maintain a willful ignorance of or otherwise discount these monumental transformations to the nation’s political economic landscape. Such a tendency is bolstered by the post-1913 tax exempt status of philanthropic foundations, universities, and a majority of non-governmental organizations.

The murder of President John F. Kennedy, America’s last chief executive to challenge the country’s central banking system, intelligence apparatus, and foreign policy-making establishment, ushered in the present era of deformed liberalism that largely limited the parameters of acceptable debate and action to mobilizing specific identity-based constituencies toward blind support of an aggressively expansive welfare/police/warfare state predicated on unwarranted taxation and debt.

While Markey’s “Hate Crimes Reporting Act” may never see the light of day, its proposal is yet another manifestation of America’s faux liberalism that is steadily collapsing through its own excessive hypocrisy and denial. A belief system that seeks to criminalize speech based on something as semantically unstable and politically-charged as “hate” should be recognized as a thinly-disguised authoritarianism—indeed, one so devoid of ideas, substance, and historical awareness that it must insist on its own continued relevance by threatening to assail the very ideals it purports to exemplify and defend.

19 thoughts on “Faux Liberalism’s Politics of “Hate””

  1. Markey’s power play is an especially compelling—though increasingly commonplace—example of despotism masquerading as liberalism, one that no honestly free society would seriously consider.

    Commonplace is right. One thing I seem to notice as a trend in Congress is that when the left loses a vote on anything that infringes on the rights of the people they say: this isn’t over, we will bring this back. However when a conservative loses and his bill is quashed: its over bud, don’t ever bring it up again. This could be just my own personal bias, or a failure of the press to report fairly, but look at the last major gun control decision by the Supreme Court where the people won for a change (Heller v. District of Columbia- decided gun ownership was an individual right). This should have settled most of the gun control debate for a long time, but its like it never happened. They just keep throwing the same garbage at us over and over until they get it passed. Sorry to use the whole left – right thing, but right now its all we have.

    1. It should be noted that Markey’s fundraising manager us Jon Patsavos , who happens to have a striking resemblence to a cosmetically modified Christian Williams, one of the Boston Marathon Bombing fake injured.

    2. There’s more on gun ownership cases here and it’s absolutely true that there’s an ongoing battle to pass legislation when it should have been settled. Bloomberg should have given his $50 million for school orchestras but he isn’t culturally inclined.


    3. You have it right. Gun control is not the only issue. It seems same sex marriage has been opposed over and over again through the courts and public opinion yet the issue never dies. Popular majority in this country clearly thinks marriage should only be between a man and a woman yet we get bombarded daily with the stuff.

  2. Another back door effort to police the internet, with the potential for extra controls on texting, messaging, etc. thrown in for good measure.

    I think one goal of this type of legislation is to increase the culpability of Internet Service Providers for crimes loosely tied to internet communications. If ISPs could end up with stiff fines or worse by allowing access to “hate” based websites, then more restrictions will come.

    Further, hosting companies could come under fire and be forced to cancel services for those deemed hateful – or face criminal action.

    The Search Engines can also be compelled to adjust their algorithms to blacklist offending sites.

    “They” want an internet that is just like your cable box – lots of flavors to choose from as long as you enjoy variations on chocolate and vanilla.

    People who blog for nickels (or less) and can’t be bought are a thorn in the side of the establishment. Find more ways to inflict pain on those who can be bought, and the hope is that they will cut off the oxygen supply to the rabble rousers.

  3. “We have recently seen in Kansas the deadly destruction and loss of life that hate speech can fuel…”

    Dr. Tracy, do we have your permission to discuss the uncomfortable truth behind this criminalization of free speech? It was introduced just hours after another staged and scripted “shooting” event, this time in Overland Park, Kansas. The linkage is as clear as it gets – the BDS movement on college campuses is gaining serious momentum. The words “apartheid” and Israel are commonplace in on-line media. If we can legislate that any criticism of Israel is hate speech, then we can put an end to this BDS nonsense and continue unabated the land grab.

  4. It’s true that we need more hate speech, especially of the oligarchy. It is the only way we can take the money away from the rich, the law away from their lawyers, the guns away from their gunmen, and the truth away from their truthsters. And given the current ideological duplicity of the power structure under the War on Terrorism, where the Proclaimed purpose is precisely contrary to the operative purpose, you can bet that this is the kind of thing that he wants to prevent.

    However there is a real problem here. You naturally want to encourage the people to express their views, since that is a major way of politicizing them. But should you allow free speech to fascists who, once in power, will prevent it. Should this be allowed to racist terrorists who advocate racist terrorism. And then there is a question of how it is to be prevented, and who is to judge.

    I am against free speech for advocating political murder or terrorism, but how is this to be restricted? I don’t know.

  5. Really like the thust of this thread. As usual, Dr. Tracy filters out the nuggets of the issue and presents them with the mark of a scholar and thinking man’s sensibiliy.

    Mr. Markey’s sad and resolute face expresses the temperment of a man who has ready decided the issue and will not be moved.

    Think many Congressmen and women need to dig a little deeper, both politically and historically before clutteing up newsfeeds and Congressional paprtwork with more pointless hyperbole.

    Want something important to muddle over, Congressman, check out
    this blurb….

    Alex Jones, with two knowledgeable repoters on the ground today,
    invesigated the Camp HIll Poemtemkin town in VA–built ostensibly to provide a training sight for our growing military presence on U.S. soil.
    Complete with the configuration of a modern American town, at a huge
    price tag, it is nestled behind two rows of concertina wire. more in kepping with black interrigation sights springing up across the globe.

    I want to see you tackle something really important to the people, you, know, the ones you are sworn to serve…. Get grave about that! Write
    a bill to open an investigation into this matter.

    Thank you…..


  6. Miggy, two recent polls showed that’s not the case. In one poll, 52% of Americans thought that same sex marriage should be law. The other poll had it at 55%. Same for gun control. More Americans favor some sort of more restrictive laws than those who want less restrictive laws or the present laws.

  7. There are those who think free speech is fine, as long as you agree with us.

    Indeed, the IRS has been busted for targeting individuals who believe government is too big or needs to be reformed.

    We should disgrace the football player who praised God too much, and praise the newly drafted player who thought a sloppy man kiss with white stuff all over their faces is a great thing. Sure am glad my daughter is grown and do not have to explain to her what was going on there.

    You would be delusional to think Americans want more gun control, inspite of the multi millions Bloomberg and his ilk have poored into the brainwashing. Am hopeful, this attack against law abiding citizens, may be the one that wakes the masses up!

    Bet you haven’t heard of the million man march planned for DC this weekend and it probably will not be reported in the news.

  8. I think when a congressman tries to pass bad law like this, its his way of hanging a for sale sign around his neck. “Open for business” so to speak.

  9. Being that Dr. Tracy mentions the federal reserve in this article, I am compelled to tell you about Brother John F. He puts out some great analysis of the financial markets using charts, and articles he finds online. He usually starts and ends from his point of view as a silver investor. His “independent research and analysis” wink, wink,, of world events as they pertain to the destruction of our money is most insightful.

    I won’t post a link but give him a look on you tube. just do a search for
    Brother John F, he has a channel on youtube.

Comments are closed.