Chris Adamo
"Gay" activism: from bullies to brownshirts
By Chris Adamo
An Open Letter to Mitchell Baker, Chairwoman of Mozilla Corporation, regarding the dismissal of Chief Executive Officer Brendan Eich:
Dear Chairwoman Baker,
I'm writing to inform you that as a result of the decisions made by Mozilla Corporation during the past week, I will at my earliest opportunity be switching to another web browser, and will no longer utilize Firefox or any other Mozilla product from this point forward. Admittedly, this change can not take place instantly, since I have used Firefox almost exclusively for many years, and am deeply entrenched in it.
Nevertheless, the reprehensible actions taken against your former CEO Brendan Eich, and your stated rationale for doing so, make it impossible ever again to have any confidence in the integrity of your organization. Given the vast expansion of Internet communications in the past few years, it is imperative that First Amendment rights, including the unconstrained exchange of information and ideas, be preserved and protected. The critical importance of maintaining the ability to communicate is essential to the continuation of a healthy and free America. With the stakes being so high and the consequences of ethical capitulation so grave, it is far too risky to associate with an organization that exhibits such flagrant institutional hostility for the noble principles enshrined at the nation's founding, and by which Mozilla, among so many other American enterprises, has flourished.
It is particularly distressing that Mozilla would conduct itself in so deplorable a manner at the behest of a tiny segment of the population that incessantly claims to oppose "bullying" while historically engaging in the worst of bullying as a means of advancing its agenda. The flimsy veneer of "equality" and "tolerance" in which the homosexual advocacy cloaks itself belies the well-documented manner of its activism. And all those who choose to accept its falsely sanitized presentation of itself and its goals are guilty of enabling this insatiable portion of the counterculture to continue its assault on the fabric of the nation.
The notion that the homosexual activists only aspire to establish a "live and let live" regard for their lifestyle has been thoroughly disproven throughout history. In particular, the "Gay" agenda in America in recent decades has never been content with mere acceptance, but has demanded a universal stamp of unconditional approval from the entirety of society. It is this premise alone, and not some feeble tax edge, that has motivated the whole same-sex "marriage" onslaught of the past decade.
Contrary to the sanctimonious caterwauling of "inequality and discrimination," the homosexual segment of the population has been able to conduct itself within its own circles as it chooses for many years. But as is always the case, this latitude only served to embolden its members to impose their conduct on society around them to an ever expanding degree. Thus, the lifting of social taboos resulted in such atrocious demonstrations as the disruption of services in Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York and other major church settings where deliberate sacrilege was committed in protest against Biblical teaching on right and wrong that did not comply with the homosexual worldview. Since that time, the instant and unrelenting accusations of "hate" hurled at any who dared disagree with the "gay community" have become the standard weapon of intimidation invoked to marginalize and silence any individual or organization who might deviate, no matter how slightly, from the countercultural orthodoxy.
As this movement continues to burgeon and metastasize, business owners are being harassed, vandalized, and hounded out of the public marketplace merely for refusing to lend their services to, or otherwise participate in a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. Clearly, no latitude for "live and let live" exists here. Total conformity and compliance is demanded, with the dreaded inevitability of bullying and reprisal awaiting any who refuse to acquiesce to the new order. Those who reflexively characterize as "hate" even the mildest digression from their creed prove time and again that it is they who are consumed and driven by hate, and completely willing to act on it at every juncture.
Against such a backdrop, it is particularly disappointing that you would seek to cloak your collaboration in such transparent euphemisms as "diversity," and "inclusiveness," or suggest that you have any regard whatsoever for varying "religious views." Your actions against Mr. Eich clearly reveal that within your organization, the moment an individual's beliefs fail to align with countercultural dogma, retribution is imminent and swift. Despite your attempts at covering your conduct with window dressing, you engage in the starkest form of attempted "thought control." No room for any "religious beliefs," other than those ordained by the prophets of "political correctness," will be tolerated.
In a healthy climate of self-governance, the appropriate response from those who took issue with Mr. Eich's donation of $1000 to protect traditional marriage in California would have been to donate $2000 dollars to the opponents of that initiative. But the modern counterculture increasingly abhors the American ideal, and instead embraces the philosophies and tactics of Machiavelli and Alinsky, which scorn mutual respect and resort instead to threats and subterfuge. The goal of their assault on Brendan Eich was twofold, first to publicly punish him for daring to contravene their dictates for society, and second to exploit his plight as a means of intimidating others from ever daring to exercise their freedoms as he had done.
On both counts, Mozilla has become a willing participant and collaborator. You can mollify your conscience with such flowery platitudes as "protecting the web." But be warned. If you aid and abet the destruction of America's moral foundation, once the countercultural orthodoxy has assumed a position of uncontested dominance, your only option will be to completely agree with it on every issue forever without exception, lest you share the same fate as Mr. Eich.
To that end, the damage Mozilla has done to the nation, and to itself, is irreparable. The quality of your product, regardless of the heights it may reach in the future, cannot compensate to any degree for the Orwellian pall now descending across the nation, in which you have chosen to become a key player. That trust which you violated can never be restored.
© Chris Adamo
April 10, 2014
An Open Letter to Mitchell Baker, Chairwoman of Mozilla Corporation, regarding the dismissal of Chief Executive Officer Brendan Eich:
Dear Chairwoman Baker,
I'm writing to inform you that as a result of the decisions made by Mozilla Corporation during the past week, I will at my earliest opportunity be switching to another web browser, and will no longer utilize Firefox or any other Mozilla product from this point forward. Admittedly, this change can not take place instantly, since I have used Firefox almost exclusively for many years, and am deeply entrenched in it.
Nevertheless, the reprehensible actions taken against your former CEO Brendan Eich, and your stated rationale for doing so, make it impossible ever again to have any confidence in the integrity of your organization. Given the vast expansion of Internet communications in the past few years, it is imperative that First Amendment rights, including the unconstrained exchange of information and ideas, be preserved and protected. The critical importance of maintaining the ability to communicate is essential to the continuation of a healthy and free America. With the stakes being so high and the consequences of ethical capitulation so grave, it is far too risky to associate with an organization that exhibits such flagrant institutional hostility for the noble principles enshrined at the nation's founding, and by which Mozilla, among so many other American enterprises, has flourished.
It is particularly distressing that Mozilla would conduct itself in so deplorable a manner at the behest of a tiny segment of the population that incessantly claims to oppose "bullying" while historically engaging in the worst of bullying as a means of advancing its agenda. The flimsy veneer of "equality" and "tolerance" in which the homosexual advocacy cloaks itself belies the well-documented manner of its activism. And all those who choose to accept its falsely sanitized presentation of itself and its goals are guilty of enabling this insatiable portion of the counterculture to continue its assault on the fabric of the nation.
The notion that the homosexual activists only aspire to establish a "live and let live" regard for their lifestyle has been thoroughly disproven throughout history. In particular, the "Gay" agenda in America in recent decades has never been content with mere acceptance, but has demanded a universal stamp of unconditional approval from the entirety of society. It is this premise alone, and not some feeble tax edge, that has motivated the whole same-sex "marriage" onslaught of the past decade.
Contrary to the sanctimonious caterwauling of "inequality and discrimination," the homosexual segment of the population has been able to conduct itself within its own circles as it chooses for many years. But as is always the case, this latitude only served to embolden its members to impose their conduct on society around them to an ever expanding degree. Thus, the lifting of social taboos resulted in such atrocious demonstrations as the disruption of services in Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York and other major church settings where deliberate sacrilege was committed in protest against Biblical teaching on right and wrong that did not comply with the homosexual worldview. Since that time, the instant and unrelenting accusations of "hate" hurled at any who dared disagree with the "gay community" have become the standard weapon of intimidation invoked to marginalize and silence any individual or organization who might deviate, no matter how slightly, from the countercultural orthodoxy.
As this movement continues to burgeon and metastasize, business owners are being harassed, vandalized, and hounded out of the public marketplace merely for refusing to lend their services to, or otherwise participate in a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. Clearly, no latitude for "live and let live" exists here. Total conformity and compliance is demanded, with the dreaded inevitability of bullying and reprisal awaiting any who refuse to acquiesce to the new order. Those who reflexively characterize as "hate" even the mildest digression from their creed prove time and again that it is they who are consumed and driven by hate, and completely willing to act on it at every juncture.
Against such a backdrop, it is particularly disappointing that you would seek to cloak your collaboration in such transparent euphemisms as "diversity," and "inclusiveness," or suggest that you have any regard whatsoever for varying "religious views." Your actions against Mr. Eich clearly reveal that within your organization, the moment an individual's beliefs fail to align with countercultural dogma, retribution is imminent and swift. Despite your attempts at covering your conduct with window dressing, you engage in the starkest form of attempted "thought control." No room for any "religious beliefs," other than those ordained by the prophets of "political correctness," will be tolerated.
In a healthy climate of self-governance, the appropriate response from those who took issue with Mr. Eich's donation of $1000 to protect traditional marriage in California would have been to donate $2000 dollars to the opponents of that initiative. But the modern counterculture increasingly abhors the American ideal, and instead embraces the philosophies and tactics of Machiavelli and Alinsky, which scorn mutual respect and resort instead to threats and subterfuge. The goal of their assault on Brendan Eich was twofold, first to publicly punish him for daring to contravene their dictates for society, and second to exploit his plight as a means of intimidating others from ever daring to exercise their freedoms as he had done.
On both counts, Mozilla has become a willing participant and collaborator. You can mollify your conscience with such flowery platitudes as "protecting the web." But be warned. If you aid and abet the destruction of America's moral foundation, once the countercultural orthodoxy has assumed a position of uncontested dominance, your only option will be to completely agree with it on every issue forever without exception, lest you share the same fate as Mr. Eich.
To that end, the damage Mozilla has done to the nation, and to itself, is irreparable. The quality of your product, regardless of the heights it may reach in the future, cannot compensate to any degree for the Orwellian pall now descending across the nation, in which you have chosen to become a key player. That trust which you violated can never be restored.
© Chris Adamo
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
