The Privacy Cloak: Hiding the Right to Kill
CHAPTER 8 — THE PRIVACY CLOAK: HIDING THE RIGHT TO KILL
American Life League
Be this your wall of brass, to have no guilty secrets, no wrong-doing that makes you pale.
Horace.
Anti-Life Philosophy.
Privacy is absolutely fundamental to our most basic personal and human rights. It is nobody's business what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes or in other places, either by themselves or with other consenting adults.
The Rabid Right is totally without shame or morals, and they have to poke their noses into everyone else's business in order to assert control over society. We progressives will no longer stand for this kind of overt oppression.
The Privacy Cloak:
Fundamental to Neoliberal "Progress."
Of all human pursuits, murder has the most deadly need of privacy. Man will go to any length to preserve the solitude in which he takes life, even to homicide, yet by no act can he more completely and irrevocably destroy it.
William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust, 1948.
Do It In Private.
It is obvious that all immoral and/or illegal acts must be committed in privacy, away from the prying eyes of those who might wish to interfere with the perpetrator(s). This is because every one of these acts involves some definite and obvious harm being perpetrated, either to an individual or to society in general. And it is in society's best interest to suppress these behaviors.
It does not matter what the bloody and cowardly act is child abuse and molestation, burglary, larceny, bestiality, murder, abortion, rape, or exploitation by pornography it must be committed in the strictest secrecy if the perpetrator has the slightest hope of success.
The Two Fundamental Neoliberal Strategies.
Introduction.
There are two general methods by which Neoliberals use the privacy cloak to accomplish their objectives. These are (1) the legal establishment of a fundamental "right," and (2) an attempt to render the act(s) in question free of moral content.
Strategy (1): Establish the Legal "Right."
The first way Neoliberals establish the privacy cloak is by getting the Courts to declare a fundamental Constitutional "right to privacy," thereby legalizing the acts in question and allegedly placing them "beyond debate."
The United States Supreme Court first stumbled upon the mythical "right to privacy" in its 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision, which legalized artificial contraception for married couples. Three years later, the Court extended this right to unmarried persons. And, of course, five years after that, it quickly applied the "right to privacy" to abortion in their Roe v. Wade decision.
The "right to privacy" is now being invoked all over the country in both passive and active euthanasia cases. The most notorious of these was the case of the Bloomington, Indiana baby whose very right to live was found to be less important than his parents' right to privacy. Baby Doe paid for his parents' precious privacy by dying in agony of thirst and starvation, despite the fact that more than 300 couples were desperate to adopt him.
He was not even dignified with a name.
Think of it for a moment. In just 25 years, we have traveled from a point where the birth control pill was considered repulsive to a point where we can kill our own children at any time before birth (and after birth, in some cases). And our society is actually considering whether or not people can kill themselves and others all to support a "right" that was nonexistent at the beginning!
The "right to privacy" has even been interpreted by Federal judges to protect the manufacturers of child pornography.
United States District Judge Stanley Sporkin overturned a Congressional child pornography statute, holding that "Many of the artists and adult models engaged in sexually explicit visual imagery have an interest in maintaining their anonymity to avoid stigmatization, harassment and ridicule from others."
The American Library Association cheered this decision that struck down even the most trivial limits on "kiddie porn." One ALA spokeswoman gushed that "We're delighted."[1]
The results of this decision were entirely predictable. Within days, owners and operators of adult book stores that sold kiddie porn were saying that they would take legal action against local citizens who used the tactic of photographing their patrons, because these lowlifes would suffer, as Judge Sporkin said, "stigmatization, harassment and ridicule from others."
Meanwhile, the porn shop owners and the ALA did not say a word about the plight of small children being enslaved by "kiddie porn" makers and being forced to perform perverted acts with adults and even animals.
It has even been suggested that the right to privacy be extended to cover those who want to be frozen in liquid nitrogen before they die in the hope of being revived in future centuries. California's Alcor Company was investigated for severing Dora Kent's head (called "suspension member" by the cryophiles) before she was dead. The primary argument in defense of this bizarre incident was the allegation that people should be able to do anything they want to with their own bodies in private, of course.[2]
Strategy (2): Planned Obsolescence.
The second tactic used by the Neoliberals regarding the privacy cloak is to actually render the cloak obsolescent in practice by removing the very requirement for privacy. This is done simply by convincing society that the act(s) in question are absolutely free of moral content. Such acts include the production and distribution of pornography and the perpetration of homosexuality.
This "obsolescence" strategy must be employed when the immoral behavior in question is (1) widely practiced, (2) requires expert assistance, or (3) is impossible to conceal. Three examples of behaviors that meet one or more of these criteria are abortion, sodomy, and the more extreme expressions of 'hard-core' pornography.
Of course, if a person who is willing to commit an illegal or immoral act can get enough other people to join him, he does not need the privacy cloak at all. He can ignore laws and social mores and perform the act in public with impunity unless the public objects strenuously enough.
On Ignoring the Law.
Neoliberals have found that, if they cannot force the public to accept immoral behavior that also happens to be illegal, they can commit the acts with impunity while simultaneously using the court system to place such behavior in the realm of protected private activity. This is an identifying feature of the strategy of gradualism or incrementalism, which is described in Chapter 7.
Abortion is a classic example of this principle. Sodomy is another. The evolution of widespread pornography is yet another. And, of course, euthanasia is another, in the form of killings committed by Jack ("The Dripper") Kevorkian and thousands of other anonymous persons.
The objectives of publicly flouting the law are (1) to "show" that the laws are unenforceable and should therefore be discarded, and (2) to "desensitize" the public into thinking that such acts are "mainstream" in nature.
Two "movements" that have not yet "made it," (but not for want of trying), are organized child molesters (pederasts/pedophiles) in the form of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and the Rene Guyon Society, and organized prostitutes in groups such as Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics (COYOTE) and Johns and Call Girls United Against Repression (JACGUAR).
The Reddest of Red Herrings.
It is ironic that the homosexuals, pornographers, and abortionists are crying that "the government must stay out of the bedroom," when it is obvious to thinking people that most of their activities take place outside the bedroom. Additionally, such people allege that the State has no right to regulate sexual behavior, which is utter nonsense. Every state has laws against or regulating prostitution, polygamy, rape, incest, and who can get married and divorced.
More than 99 percent of all abortions take place in freestanding clinics or in hospitals. The only exceptions, of course, are those women who abort themselves at home during one of the "abortion parties" that are becoming so popular among hardcore Neofeminists.
The vast majority of high-quality hard-core porn (to include "kiddie porn") is produced not in private bedrooms, but in lavishly-equipped professional studios.
Homosexuals in particular shrilly allege that "The government should stay out of the bedroom." But, just like abortions, homosexual behavior rarely occurs in the bedroom.
According to The Gay Report and two other surveys conducted by homosexuals, the results of an intensive survey of a large number of homosexuals reveals that the most popular places for sodomy and other perverted sex acts are;
(1) public rest rooms, where "glory holes" are cut out of stall partitions so
that men may anonymously commit sodomy and fellatio on each other;
(2) Pornographic movie houses and bookstores and peep shows;
(3) bus stations;
(4) service stations;
(5) public libraries;
(6) highway rest stops;
(7) public parks;
(8) public baths or "health clubs," where men congregate and watch other
men sodomize each other;
(9) "gay bars" and night clubs; and
(10) street corners where they "cruise" for anonymous partners.[3]
Private bedrooms did not even make the top ten!
Any beat cop from a medium- to large-sized city can attest to the chronic problems of homosexuals copulating in highway rest stops, in the bushes of public parks, and in homosexual bookstore stalls.
The Deadly Consequences of Unlimited Privacy.
Introduction.
Most people think of a "right to privacy" as an unalloyed good. After all, privacy is the foundation of several articles of the Bill of Rights and is one of the chief ways in which most people favorably contrast a democracy with a Communist state, where privacy is nonexistent.
But few people realize that the paramount right to privacy has cost thousands of people their very lives in this country due to entirely avoidable AIDS infections, and the problem promises to get worse as a pro-homosexual Administration panders to sex perverts of every stripe. Typically, those who value their privacy obsessively will not make the slightest concession to public safety and health, even with the knowledge that they are literally killing other people with their activities.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Ironically, the homosexual movement's obsession with privacy is the primary reason that sodomites are dying not some alleged "government conspiracy against gays."
It is obvious that no effective anti-AIDS public health effort can occur in the total absence of reliable epidemiological data on the disease. No such effort can exist under current conditions, because every effort made to trace the spread of the disease by identifying sexual 'partners' has been viciously attacked by homosexuals as "scapegoating." Therefore, under current privacy laws, no epidemiological statistic is reliable and researchers must base their work on guesses regarding statistics and trends.
Incredibly, sodomite activists even tried to stop blood screening for AIDS in 1983 on the grounds that it was, according to the lofty opinion of the National Gay Task Force, "scapegoating" and "stigmatizing!"[4] In fact, blood banks still collect blood in the Castro District of San Francisco, which has the highest density of AIDS carriers in the country, in order not to offend sodomites.
No reputable researcher can possibly hope to achieve meaningful results under such conditions. The result instead is futility: i.e., "garbage in, garbage out." As long as researchers only possess information on those persons who have died of AIDS, their most current information is at least five years out of date.
Because homosexuals participate in activities that are utterly revolting to the public, the 'right' to privacy is tailor-made for the 'gays' to advance their perverted agenda. Although there are hundreds of examples of this kind of skulduggery, several instances stand out, as described below.
The "Columbus of AIDS."
Ironically, the "right to privacy" contributed heavily to the 'jump-starting' of the AIDS epidemic in the United States.
According to homosexual Randy Shilts in his book And the Band Played On, the person responsible for bringing the AIDS virus to the United States was the French-Canadian airline steward Gaetan Dugas. Dugas had picked up the virus in Europe by having sex with Africans and, extensively using his airline travel privileges, proceeded to spread AIDS from San Francisco to New York City.
It is estimated that he had sex with at least three thousand men, and his sexual activity did not slow down a bit after he was diagnosed with the AIDS virus in 1980. Dugas justified his continuing sodomy with the excuse that he was free to do what he wanted to with his own body.
When he was in the final stages of AIDS, he would have anonymous sex with men in homosexual bathhouses, and then show his sexual partners his purple Kaposi's Sarcoma blotches, saying "Gay cancer. Maybe you'll get it."[5]
Dugas, labeled "patient zero" by health care authorities, died of AIDS in 1984. He was probably responsible for more than 500 deaths.
AIDS: Not an STD.
AIDS precisely fits every portion of the classical medical description of a sexually-transmitted disease (STD). However, a New York State Supreme Court justice recently declared that AIDS and HIV are not sexually-transmitted diseases.[6] This is because New York public health workers are permitted to test for STDs and can attempt to contact sexual partners of the infected person if the results are positive. Gonorrhea and syphilis have been in this category for many years. However, the homosexuals didn't like this exposure, and lobbied for special AIDS protection, claiming as they always do that any unfavorable actions against AIDS would drive AIDS 'sufferers' underground.
Insurance Panic.
In 1985, the District of Columbia caved in to homosexual pressure and adopted an ordinance that prohibited insurance companies from testing prospective applicants for AIDS antibodies or asking any questions whatever about sexual orientation. Within twelve months, 41 of the 50 insurance companies doing business in DC quit the area.[7] Prices skyrocketed and what had been a very wide range of insurance choices was suddenly and drastically constricted. Naturally, insurance premiums instantly skyrocketed by more than 50 percent, leaving thousands who could not pay without life insurance.
There was utterly no concern shown by the homosexuals for these victims of their campaign.
Under such conditions, court-ordered confidentiality allows almost unlimited opportunity for homosexuals and others with AIDS to defraud insurance companies. A comprehensive study revealed that 44 percent of those with AIDS took out life insurance policies within two years of death, compared with 8 percent of those who died of all other accidental and natural causes.[7]
The Threat to Health Professionals.
In California, the homosexual lobby has taken the quest for absolute privacy to a life-endangering extreme. A doctor cannot even inform another doctor that a referred patient has AIDS under pain of losing his license to practice. Doctors cannot tell their nurses or any other health care professional that his patient has AIDS. A doctor cannot even tell the person's wife that he has AIDS, thereby directly endangering her life in the name of Almighty Privacy![8]
The Threat to Spouses.
Most local and state health departments vigorously oppose mandatory premarital screening in order to preserve privacy, although this is a certain death sentence to a woman who marries a man with AIDS, and a death sentence for all or most of her children, as well.
When the Cloak Tears ...
An Expendable Principle.
Of course, even the paramount "right to privacy" may be discarded by the Neoliberals when it suits their purposes.
Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), routinely uses Rosie Jiminez, a woman who purportedly died of a botched abortion in 1978 because she was denied funding for her abortion, as a tool in attempts to force taxpayers to pay for all abortions.
Yard and Bill and Karen Bell, parents of Becky Bell, say that their daughter died of a botched abortion because of Indiana's parental consent laws. They have traveled all over the United States in attempts to defeat or overturn parental involvement laws.
In other words, Yard and other pro-abortionists callously use women who died for their privacy in vast media and propaganda campaigns.
Chapter 17, "Anti-Life Propaganda," tells the stories of several women who have been exploited by pro-abortionists in carefully-planned national propaganda campaigns, including Becky Bell, Rosie Jiminez, Sandra Cano, and Spring Adams.
'Outing.'
Another example of the Neoliberal disregard for their own vaunted privacy "right" is the practice called "outing."
The entire homosexual movement operates under a steel umbrella of privacy. If the public discovered the hideous things that sodomites do to each other (and even to children and animals), the resulting outcry would drive them back into the closet. So, through the years, the sodomites have become truly obsessive about their privacy.
Of course, if it will advance their perverted cause, homosexuals who are already "out" will not hesitate to rip away the shroud of privacy of other "gays" suspected of impeding their progress. This hypocritical tactic is called "outing."
A New York sodomite publication, Outweek Magazine, routinely "outs" celebrities and politicians it claims are homosexual. The mass media, including the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the San Francisco Examiner, compound the damage by reporting these allegations and the name of the target(s).
This is tantamount to publishing the most outrageous and unsubstantiated rumor as fact. Larry Kramer, a founder of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP), says that "If a man is gay and has voted against gays, he deserves to be outed and criticized."[9]
In other words, "Vote our way or we'll get you!" Michael Petrelis, another charter ACT-UP member, admits that "Maybe it is revenge. After 10 years and so many people dead, what are we supposed to do, stand around and hold candles?" Wayne E. Harris, a Portland, Oregon lawyer and member of ACT-UP, says "It has become not a right but a duty to come out."[9]
It is obvious that such a weapon may be used against 'straight' people who are labeled 'homophobic' by the sodomites. United States Senator Mark Hatfield [R-Oreg.] is one of the many victims of such slander campaigns.
Sodomite strategists Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, in their essay "The Overhauling of Straight America," describe this tactic; "Well before the next elections for national office, we might lay careful plans to run symbolic gay candidates for every high political office in this country. Our candidates could ... demand equal time on the air. They could then graciously pull out of the races before the actual elections, while formally endorsing more viable straight contenders (with malicious humor, perhaps, in some states we could endorse our most rabid opponents) ..."[10]
Conclusion.
Every true American values privacy to a certain extent. Everyone believes that "a man's home is his castle," and almost everyone wants the government to interfere with his private life as infrequently as possible while still maintaining society's fabric.
Since the average American values the patriotic concepts of "privacy," "freedom" and "choice," Neoliberals recognize the wisdom in extending these ideas to cover their own behavior. Thus, they can stretch these umbrella terms far beyond their original meaning and call any opposition to abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, and other abuses "anti-choice," "anti-freedom," and "intrusive."
Pro-lifers and other activists must not feel guilty in the least when opposing abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, "kiddie porn," and other hideous sins/crimes by the Left. After all, Neoliberals simply use the "right to privacy" as a license to abuse or kill other human beings.
If the Neoliberals have their way, the "right to privacy" will continue to be extended until it destroys any chance we have of living together without seeing each other as objects to be exploited for personal pleasure and gain.
References: The Privacy Cloak.
[1] Samuel Francis. "Librarians Work to Overturn Child Porn Law." Conservative Chronicle, June 17, 1992, page 30.
[2] Jacob Sullum. "Cold Comfort." Reason Magazine, April 1991, pages 22 to 29.
[3] K. Jay and A. Young. The Gay Report. Summit Books, 1979, page 500. See also Rechy, The Sexual Outlaw. Grove Press, 1977, and the Gayellow Pages, which are compiled by homosexuals for each large city and show exactly where sodomites congregate, and for what purposes.
[4] Journal of the American Medical Association, February 4, 1983. Also described in New Dimensions Magazine, March 1990.
[5] "The Columbus of AIDS." National Review, November 6, 1987, page 19.
[6] Mona Charen. "There's Poison Here All Right!" American Family Association Journal, February 1989, page 12.
[7] K. Clifford. "Insurance Attorney Alleges Fraud With AIDS Coverage." American Medical Association News, May 8, 1987, page 2. Also described in Father Richard Butler, O.P. "Are They Really "Gay?"" Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, page 12.
[8] Senator H.L. Richardson of the California State Assembly. "AIDS Deadly Disease With Civil Rights." National Federation for Decency Journal, August 1987, page 13.
[9] Alan K. Ota. "Outing." The Oregonian, June 24, 1990, pages M1 and M4.
[10] Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. "The Overhauling of Straight America." Guide Magazine, October and November 1987.
© American Life League BBS — 1-703-659-7111
This is a chapter of the Pro-Life Activist's Encyclopedia, published by American Life League.
