Boycott Mozilla / Firefox

Freedom means being free to disagree with the status quo.

A Letter to the Editor: The Problem With America is Apathy

I read your article on Boycott Mozilla and I cannot find a more pertinent piece of information on why people should wake up and begin to understand how life and society have changed, and not for the better. I’ll get to Mozilla in a moment , but I ran for political office in 2010 and was summarily beat, not because I didn’t have good views, but because I was a tadpole in the massive ocean of politics. People are not ready to venture out into the political world and choose a candidate that aligns with their needs/wants/views; They look for someone that (the news tells them) is electable, even when the candidate is obviously not aligned with them more than a party. In the age of the Internet, how hard is it really to look up who is running and read their views??

The problem with our politics here in the United States, as I see it, isn’t one of true ideology but one of apathy and ignorance. Most voters would sooner vote for “the devil they know” rather than put serious thought into their next representative. I can’t pretend that I alone had all the answers, but people seriously want someone that promises them that they do, even if the people know they don’t. I was the only candidate to support gay marriage, but not for the reason you might think. My thought was that marriage was one that was spiritual and left to one’s own faith and not one that is delegated and overseen by the state. Government, in my opinion, has no business in the business of marriage. Too often people believe or think that the government somehow knows better. That they somehow instinctively know that which would otherwise go unknown by anyone of skill, knowledge and understanding. This leads to a cult of personality, like one we’re seeing with the current administration, where the government can reassure the unlearned, unknowledgeable and uninformed that they have the answers, even if they don’t and the people know they don’t.

Mozilla is another in a long list of companies that wants to play politics on the “world stage” and show how they’re so incredibly tolerant (even if their policies and actions show they aren’t.) Boycott Mozilla is a noble concept but there has to be a catalyst for people to actually get off their duffs and do something. Make no mistake, I agree with you, but a web page or an article alone are not enough to affect their company bottom line in the least. Maybe a future article could lend some ways people could make a realistic impact.

I love Mozilla’s new slogan “Committed to you, your privacy and an open Web,” except that they aren’t committed to me as a person. If I have differing opinions from Mozilla they certainly are not “committed” to me. Brendan Eich knows that all too well. Perhaps they feel they take a stand on privacy but that goes out the window when you realize that their CEO’s information was put publically. That had to come from someone at Mozilla and even if it hadn’t, they should have come out immediately with a statement of how individual rights are so important to Mozilla that their employees can exercise their individual rights. They didn’t but I believe the reason is because it’s not popular to be against, what are now considered to be, progressive ideas and ideals. You know… the way the world should be… according to whom, I’m not sure but it has been put forward and pushed as that.

I would love to see a free America where we could get back to being innovators, creators, manufacturers and workers but the political landscape has changed with incredible expediency, denying that very concept. People want free stuff and to do a fair days work for a fair days wage is pushed as outdated, unfair and somehow racist. Until America gets its head out of its collective butt, we will languish in mediocrity until the political foundation falls for what it is: a house of cards.

I have two young children and I seriously fear for their future. If our “leaders,” both governmental and private sector both continue to play politics, I believe we are in for nothing short of a second revolution. Boycott Mozilla.

Jim McCormick (Former Candidate for U.S. Congress — FL-19)
Boca Raton, FL

An even more important reason to boycott Mozilla into oblivion: the future of humanity.

Yes, the future of humanity. At this very moment, someone reading the title of this post is laughing and LOLing themselves into a delirious stupor. Such individuals are, of course, hopelessly asleep and will never awaken—their infinite stupidity prevents them from ever living their sorry lives with their eyes wide open.

But for the rest of us, those of us who are able to see and feel and think, consider this, and consider it carefully:

    Do you want to support a company whose employees and executives invest so much time, effort, emotion, energy, and financial resources into forcing one of its principal executives to resign for donating a mere thousand dollars some years ago back in 2008 to a political campaign that they had every right to donate to—no matter how much anyone wishes to disagree with such a donation or whether the issue at hand concerning said donation was right or wrong—when the whole wide world in which we all share and inhabit—all of us, and that includes people who hate each other to death—is going to hell and may very likely implode into total oblivion within the coming decades?

For those who choose to laugh, I can guarantee you they are laughing even harder right now, having read that paragraph. Indeed, they are rolling out of their chairs and on the floor and quite literally killing themselves in laughter. And that is precisely what Western civilization has devolved into: a killing joke. We hear in the news about external enemies, the eternal Outsider that we have been taught to fear, whether it is the cliche of the Mad Mullahs, the Yellow Peril, the Black Hordes of Africa, and on and on, Western civilization only has itself to fear, because our sense of privilege, entitlement and security has dulled and blinded us to the realities of the outside world, realities that the populations of the so-called Second and Third Worlds are well aware of and prepared for, but that we are not.

Mozilla is guilty of one of the worst offenses a corporation—whether for-profit or otherwise; the fact that they are nonprofit does not excuse them from similar excesses of for-profit entities—can be guilty of: adding to the ever increasing waves of noise that we like to refer to as social distortion. And we're not talking about the band.

so·cial dis·tor·tion

noun informal

  1. anything that obfuscates, distracts from, or otherwise distorts the most pertinent social and political issues of the day, most especially one that does not immediately relate to existential (life-or-death) crises.

Source: All and Nothingness, An Antimodern Satire, or The Case Against Sartre by Lexander

Same-sex marriage is the latest in a long line of such social distortions, this one being the most recent favored cause célèbre of popular (bourgeois, or status quo) liberalism, similar to the pro-choice and gun control movements in that it is principally used as an ideological weapon against social conservatives and traditionalists (Middle America) in order to distract the populace at large from more pressing issues, such as domestic and global poverty, disease, famine, genocide, and war.

On the conservative side (again, the status quo of said movement, which is more often than not neoconservative rather than traditionalist or paleoconservative), such social distortions include attempting to promote Creationism or Intelligent Design as legitimate science and pushing for its inclusion alongside Darwinian and post-Darwinian theories of evolution in grade schools or preventing the construction of mosques and Hindu temples and so forth.

Between the two sides—and liberalism and neoconservativism are really two sides of the same coin as they both deal with widescale control and manipulation of society—liberal social distortions have usually been more successful in the long term, though since we're all still taking our shoes off at the airports and going through full body scanners, many neocon policies are also equally successful, if not more so.

But regardless of whether we're talking about liberals or neocons, conservatives or progressives, the vast majority of any population in any given country are not going to be particularly interested in such social distortions. The fact that most mainstream news media outlets are barely profitable anymore, and are dropping like flies one after another demonstrates this fact. Populism, left or right, is what most people really support, even though they may not admit it. And given that the Obama administration differs very little from the previous Bush administration except for a few social and economic issues here and there, and the fact that Washington is more fiscally incompetent now than ever before, a majority of Americans have lost even more faith in the federal government and want it to stay out of local and state matters—this applies both to Tea Party activists and their progressive counterparts on the radical and anarchist left.

[As an aside, we don't like the left-right dichotomy in general and believe in cooperation above all else—our bias is that we're antiauthoritarian and we're in favor of local communities that are as autonomous from federal, county and state governments as possible. In some parts of the country, this would mean more radical or leftist-type communities, while in others it would translate to more traditionalist or conservative orders.]

So when a wealthy businessman like Sam Yagan pops out of his cage a few weeks back and starts hounding a widely respected and admired Internet pioneer like Brendan Eich, who invented an entirely new language that is now the de facto standard in Web development (and we are seeing this evolution continue with Node.js, so much so that even Microsoft is headed in this direction as well away from their own aging and proprietary Web technologies), all because of a donation made to a political campaign in 2008, the first thing a lot of industry insiders started asking was: why now?

But then, things became even more absurd. Rank-and-file Mozilla employees, and then soon afterward, even top level exectives, began to hound Eich, ultimately forcing him to resign even in spite of the fact that his personal views in this area (same-sex marriage), whatever they may be (we don't even know whether his views have changed since 2008) were never an issue in the company, nor did he ever attempt to impose his personal views in his professional life. This was just days after he had been promoted up to CEO of Mozilla.

As we've stated before, put this into historical perspective: not even Steve Jobs, who was a co-founder of Apple, equally as important an industry pioneer as Brendan Eich (though obviously more socially recognized), yet when he was forced out of Apple by the corporate board, he was not the CEO. John Sculley was, though he had been brought on board by Jobs himself, a mistake he had regretted for years afterward. At the time Sculley and the board decided to take this action, Jobs had been a project director, mainly over the Macintosh, and prior to that, the Lisa. By 1985, Apple had demoted Jobs to an essentially ineffective and ceremonial position, in an effort to force him to resign from the company, which he did.

Eich was forced to resign from Mozilla, which he had helped build since the earliest days of Netscape, not only while he was CEO, but just days after he had been promoted up to that position. A much, much worse fate than had befell Jobs.

What Apple did to Jobs had nothing to do with his politics or his social views. It was purely corporate intrigue and powermongering. Eich was forced out due a political contribution made several years ago, so an argument can be made that it wasn't even due to his current personal politics or social views. Either way, he was royally screwed over much, much worse than Jobs was in 1985, and for his political views as allegedly related to a minor political donation in 2008.

Now, if you've read this far, let's take all of this into perspective given what's happening around the world. There are Salafist regimes, all of them close US allies and which altogether receive billions upon billions in aid, mainly for weapons and possibly even biological agents and funding Salafist terrorist groups against the governments of Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and Afghanistan—the amount of military aid these regimes—Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai), Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain—receive from the US and Western Europe, given that they all share resources with each other, far surpass US aid to Israel, which is miniscule in comparison. All of these Salafist regimes are have been concretely proven to have been partly responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and continue to maintain covert ties to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda via the Pakistani ISI, which itself was the principal agency responsible for the founding and growth of the Taliban, using Saudi and Emirati funds. Intelligence reports from Iran (including the Iranian Revolutionary Guards), Israeli Mossad, anti-Taliban Afghan Forces, Pakistani dissident groups, and elsewhere indicate that Al-Qaeda has been preparing for another massive attack against the US within the decade, if not sooner, this time targeting nuclear facilities. Saudi Arabia and its Salafist allies are essentially using Al-Qaeda as a way to blackmail the US into launching military strikes against Iran, a Shi'a Muslim country that Salafists consider their top enemy above even Israel.

On top of that, while the mainland Chinese and sub-Saharan African populations continue to explode to such an extent that analysts believe that by 2050 the world population will have far exceeded nine billion people, possibly as high as fourteen billion and potentially even higher if there are no pandemics or world wars between now and then.

It goes without saying that the vast majority of Asian and African peoples do not have access to clean water, fair and equitable employment, regular and healthy sources of food, or any of the bare necessities of existence that we in the US and the rest of the Western world take for granted everyday.

Right here in the US poverty is reaching levels not seen since the Great Depression and much of rural America is beginning to like like the Third World in many respects, with people—most of them White, believe it or not; it goes without saying poverty knows no race or nationality—actually living in newly formed shanty towns and decaying trailers. This is on top of the already dire situation for the vast majority of Native Americans, whose reservations, if you've ever visited them, would make you think they're living in a Third World country rather the US, considering most of them have no running water or proper sewage and plumbing. Crime rates—and in particular mass shootings, sexual crimes across gender lines (the rate of sexual assault against men is rising in a way no one could ever have imagined), and violence against women and children (in particular, the statistic of mothers murdering their babies and children is rising every year to unheard of levels)—are rising domestically and if things are not brought under control, the crime waves of the sixties and seventies will seem as nothing.

At the heart of all our domestic and international problems, it all comes down to poverty. Poverty is at the heart of it all. If population analysts are correct and we actually will double, if not triple or quadruple within the next four to five decades, the Earth will, without question, implode and as a species Nature will revolt and we will all quickly be headed toward extinction like the dinosaurs of million years past.

Considering the fuss that people in America make about same-sex marriage, to the to point that a high level executive was forced to resign over this issue and on very dubious grounds, it's a bit hard to swallow how so-called "marriage equality" is more important, let alone pertinent, than resolving poverty, bloodshed and overpopulation here in America and around the world.

We need more solutions today than ever before, and given our scientific and technological "advancements," we really have no excuse as a society. Corporations and organizations like Mozilla are part of the problem, not the solution, because what they produce is social distortion, rather than cohesion, clarity and cooperation.

Please support the effort to send a message to these corporate thugs and their allies in Washington that we're not going to stand for these absurdities anymore. Simple one individual uninstalling Firefox, Seamonkey, or Thunderbird will have an immensely huge impact.

Let's hope it is Mozilla that ends up in oblivion, and not the human race.

Inconvenient Truths: Is same-sex marriage truly an issue of civil rights, or rather of Western affluence and privilege?

Abortion. Antiracism. Antisemitism. Separatism. Evolution. Creationism. Intelligent Design. School prayer. Atheism. Socialism. Libertarianism. Universal Healthcare. Socialized Medicine. Climate Change. Antitobacco activism.. Smoker's rights. Hunting rights. Gun Control. Zionism. Islamism. Border rights. Immigration (illegal or otherwise). States' rights. Religious tax-exemption. Gender rights. Father's rights. Gay rights. Transgender rights. African-American rights. Marriage rights. Tea Party. Occupy. Rock the Vote.

The list goes on.

What these all have in common are that they share the characteristic of being what in the political circus are known as "special interest issues" or "hot button topics" or some such similar label. They are all backed by one or more allied political lobbies in Washington, with even the most seemingly fringe special interest group having some level of support in one NGO or another.

Some of these special interests are socially and/or politically legitimate causes with genuine support . Others are simply useful idiots, pawns in the larger game of political cat-and-mouse that has become the status quo in most so-called "democracies" (and even in countries not generally considered as such in the West, such as Russia, Iran, and China.)

Most activists of these special interests would consider their concerns to be on the level of genuine civil rights, which is defined by Cornell University Law School's Legal Information Institute as being "an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury."

This week America celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson. Though there were many then and even many today who either disagree that Johnson truly deserves credit for the Civil Rights Act or that the legislation itself was flawed and would not likely pass into law today, the definition of what actually constitutes a legitimate "civil right" has always been in contention.

Civil rights, then and now

We've come a long way over the years since the 1990s when politicians, both liberal and conservative, referred to sexual preference, which today is virtually unthinkable. That was the politically correct term then. Today, it is sexual orientation, and it is no longer considered a social issue involving choice but rather a biological issue that is assigned at birth, despite there being not a single shred of viable concrete evidence for either theory.

When it comes to human sexuality, most of what we know is subjective. It isn't on the same level as something like evolution, which though technically remains a theory, is all but considered a fact by the vast majority of the global scientific community. In other words, there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that there is more than enough concrete evidence to support the view that evolution is a fact, rather than a still unprovable theory. This is considered one of those politically "inconvienient truths," a phrase popularized by Al Gore's climate change documentary of the same name.

Is climate change truly a man-made and thus artificial phenomenon, or is it simply a natural shift occurring once every several millennia? A large majority of scientists argue the former, while a fairly sizable and growing minority of scientists argue the latter. What is the ultimate truth? They've all got a long way to go before climate change can be conclusively proved or disproved as being man-made to the extent that politicians and public policy makers can reach a wide enough consensus that will stick. In the meantime, lacking sufficient evidence either way, billions are being spent (wasted?) every year trying to figure it all out and to finance all this political bickering.

Then there are issues such as abortion and gun control, which are more social rather than scientific, in the sense that they are issues of ethics and morality. With abortion, for example, there are religious concerns in addition to existing medical and biological issues. Whether an individual should have the right to bear arms is obviously constitutional (and still legally protected by the Second Amendment), but is also an ethical one as there are just as many people who oppose this right as there are who support it. A closely related issue is that of hunting rights—is it morally defensible to hunt animals for recreation and/or food, and should people have the right to hunt animals for one reason or another? Unlike climate change, these are matters that most agree are more subjective rather than scientific, and less an issue of civil rights than cultural mores that fluctuate over time.

Other issues, such as slavery, while similarly social and cultural, have become firmly accepted as being absolutely taboo by most civilized societies today, even though some countries, such as India, China, and the Salafist regimes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates still practice scertain forms of slavery, including both forced labor and sexual slavery. In the case of Salafi regimes, slavery has generally been justified on religious and racial grounds, as Salafism views the Arabic-speaking tribes of the Najd as racially and religiously superior to all other peoples, including other Arabic-speakers—it is yet another inconvienient truth that the vast majority of Arabs are oppressed by other Arabs, just as the vast majority of Indians are oppressed by other Indians, and the vast majority of Chinese oppressed by the People's Republic.

As America celebrates the victories of the Civil Rights Movement of the sixties, it is a rarely noted irony that despite their history, many African-American celebrities, most recently Tyrese Gibson of The Fast & the Furious fame, have spent a significant amount of vacation time in slave states like Dubai, which is just as popular, if not more so, among White American and European celebrities and elites. The now deceased global pop icon, Michael Jackson, was a regular and long-time visitor to Bahrain, the Salafist regime of which was notoriously alleged to have regularly supplied him with young children kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery, mostly from the Indian subcontinent.

Today, there is not a single sane, civilized human being who would argue that something as morally and ethically reprehensible as slavery, of any form or kind, is in any way, shape or form defensible. It is the penultimate cultural taboo of the modern age. Yet there are clearly many individuals, particularly among the global elite, even in Hollywood, who turn a blind eye to the continued existence of slavery and human trafficking for the purpose of sexual slavery and forced labor.

And this is to say nothing of the ever mounting issue of global poverty, disease and famine, which even right here in the United States remains an unresolved and growing dilemma.

Same-sex marriage: a civil right or social distortion?

This brings us to the matter of same-sex marriage and whether or not it is defensible to oppose the idea. Indeed, this is what provoked this blog to come into being, as a result of the absurdly over-the-top bigotry and harassment against Brendan Eich, the inventor of JavaScript, a key developer of the Netscape and Firefox web browsers from the very beginning of both projects, and an undisputed pioneer of the Internet since the early-to-mid nineties when the World Wide Web began to evolve into the central global information, communication and entertainment matrix that it is today.

The irony is that Eich, like many individuals, does not necessarily oppose same-sex marriage, but rather may or may not be critical of certain aspects and legal language of such proposed laws. What is known is that in 2008 he did contribute approximately $1,000USD to the Prop 8 Campaign in California, a relatively minor amount and also taking into consideration that Eich remained largely quiet on the issue and was not an activist on the issue aside from this particular donation.

At the time, and in the years that followed, this did not appear to be a serious issue for those who knew and worked with him. It certainly did not at any time appear to be a serious issue within Mozilla, especially considering the fact that Eich does not harbor any bigotry towards sexual and gender minorities and as with most Internet pioneers, has been very progressive on such issues. During his time at Mozilla, and Netscape prior to the corporate restructuring, Eich did nothing to oppose or in any way limit the rights of LGBTQ employees. This is especially key, as both Netscape and Mozilla have consistently been highly regarded, as with most other pioneering Internet and high technology firms, as being one of the best places to work at for LGBTQ individuals.

However, like many pioneering tech professionals, and in fact the vast majority of the population, both in the United States and abroad, Eich does have personal beliefs which may or may be considered politically correct. If he does oppose same-sex marriage and believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, then today this is absolutely not politically correct. However, up until the middle of the first term of the administration of President Barack Obama, it was in fact the politically correct position of the status quo in Washington. Most Democratic politicians and presidential candidates up until 2010-2011 or so, consistently supported the traditional legal definition of marriage.

There has obviously been a sea change in this opinion within the Democratic Party since that time, as President Obama has long since reversed his position and now supports same-sex marriage (which he opposed throughout both his State Senate and Congressional Senate careers and even during his 2008 presidential campaign), though many Democrats still remain in opposition.

This mirrors a similar situation in Canada in the early 2000s, when the Canadian government and several provincial governments, began quickly pushing into law the legalization of same-sex marriage, beginning with Ontario in 2003 and finally at the federal level in 2005. Contrary to what many actvists claimed, however, this was not a democratic process as it involved the courts rather than democratic polling among the citizenry and was actually opposed by many, if not most Canadians, and to this day remains a controversial, but politically untouchable decision.

In spite of the immense opposition to same-sex marriage throughout Canada, in particular outside the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the unusual decision of the ruling Liberal Party to make same-sex marriage legal at the federal level in 2005 was widely viewed as an attempt to distract the populace and media away from several serious and highly embarassing scandals, including the extraordinary rendition of Maher Arar (which was mainly the fault of the incredibly incompetent and pathetically stupid RCMP and Canadian authorities, rather than any agency of the United States), the Sponsorship scandal, which still remains the most controversial financial scandal in Canadian history to date, among several other financial and international scandals involving embezzlement, money laundering, extraordinary rendition, massive and extremely illegal financial concessions to the People's Republic of China (which continues to virtually own the Canadian economy), the support of foreign terrorist groups, and illegally allowing the United States to conduct widespread covert mass surveillance operations, mirroring the free reign the Canadian government gave to the CIA during the 1960s and 1970s when MK-Ultra was being illegally conducted in Montreal by Donald Ewen Cameron.

In South America, where some countries have legalized same-sex marriage (Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay) and others have attempted to follow suit, this has been largely viewed as an attempt to stem the tide of the political and religious right and permanently institute progressive socialist governments that cannot be later reversed. In Europe, the view is quite different, being interpreted more as an attempt to dissuade Muslim immigration and prevent current Muslim residents and citizens from attempting to institute Sharia law, which is absurd, as in reality it is impossible for any Muslims to institute any form of Islamic law among the non-Muslim majorities In the United Kingdom for example, there has been some success among some Muslims to institute Sharia law in their own communities, but even then this has been overwhelmingly opposed by Muslims themselves as creating permanent ghettos that would be impenetrable by non-Muslims and government authorities.

What we're demonstrating here is that however which way you want to interpret same-sex marriage, it is virtually impossible to separate from the issue of religion and tradition. This is an absolute fact, and indeed, one of the very few absolutes that exist in the annals of human history. There is not one single precedent for any form of same-sex marriage in history, and marriage equality activists themselves do not deny this and accept that it is a revisionist and secularist interpretation of marriage, which up until the modern era was solely the domain of religious authorities.

Only recently in the United Kingdom, for example, has it been possible for members of non-theistic religions, such as Scientology, Buddhism, and Jainism, to marry. As difficult as it may be for some to accept, if you happened to be a Buddhist or Scientologist in the UK, you could not get married in a religious ceremony. This reversal itself was brought about as a result of a lawsuit by a (heterosexual) Scientologist couple, and the decision was controversial and opposed by a minority of Christians and those opposed to the Church of Scientology. Most Americans do not realize that unlike the United States, there is no separation of Church and State in the United Kingdom, and the state religion is the Church of England, of which the reigning Sovereign, currently Elizabeth II, is the Supreme Leader. In virtually every monarchy throughout Europe and the rest of the world, including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, there is no separation between the religion and the State as the Sovereign (who is, of course, the head of state) must be a member of a particular religion. For example, even in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, upon the passing of Queen Elizabeth II, her successor must absolutely be a member of the Church of England. Of these three, Australia is the most independent in terms of its relation to the monarchy, while Canada is the least independent, not only in the sense of its relation to the monarchy but also in relation to the fact that it is one of the least democratic and free of the so-called First World nations, particularly in comparison with the United States, which despite its many shortcomings, remains the most free of Western nations.

Thus, it is not unusual that given the fact of the United States offering the most freedoms and liberties of any country in the world, that there would be a very strong and active movement to legalize same-sex marriage. But, most would agree that is absolutely not a black-and-white issue, so much so that even in France, that most staunchly secular of states, only legalized same-sex marriage in 2013 amidst widespread hostility to passing such legislation. In Turkey, which is a Muslim-majority country but like France legally enshrines secularism as official state policy, opposition to same-sex marriage is likewise strong, while in Israel, which is unusual as being both a secular and religious state, it is virtually impossible for same-sex marriage to achieve legal recognition due to the powerful Orthodox Jewish religious lobby.

Now, here we begin to arrive at something that is literally stranger than fiction: of those countries and localities that have legalized same-sex marriage, there are virtually no cases where a person working in the private sector has been harassed or forced to resign from their job. There may have been a few isolated incidents here and there, but even in Canada, where the majority of not only the current Canadian government, including Prime Minister, Stephen Harper (who himself, like most politicians, claims to be Christian, but behaves in very un-Christian and irreligious ways), strongly oppose same-sex marriage, but also in the private sector. But nobody has been getting fired or being forced to resign because of such opposition. At least none that have been notable enough for us to take notice of.

The atmosphere of hostility that was created against Brendan Eich at Mozilla by both his executive colleagues and subordinate employees defines all common sense, logic and reason. We have previously asked the question that if a woman who happened to be a radical feminist and opposed all forms of marriage on the basis of opposition to patriarchy (and marriage being a historically patriarchal institution, not existing during early and prehistoric matriarchal eras), would she be fired or forced to resign? Or what of a gay man or lesbian woman who opposes marriage on the basis of marriage being an originally heterosexual institution? We have many friends and associates who refer to marriage, any form of marriage, hetero or homo, as being inherently "heterosexist." They are all mostly artists, and artists whose works are considered very high value on the contemporary blue chip market. Should they all lose their jobs and livelihoods and not have anyone purchase their art simply for their personal beliefs, which by the way, they have never attempted to impose upon anyone, let alone (at least for the most part) propagate in a public form?

Brendan Eich donated a bit of money to a mainstream cause that is not illegal nor considered morally indefensible by the vast majority, including many advocates of same-sex marriage. Yet he has been vilified and treated in a way that rivals the treatment in the media of brutal dictators and war criminals.

Even among more moderate critics of Eich there were calls for him to simply apologize and let it go at that, but this would be just as absurd as calling for his resignation. Why should anyone apologize for harboring a personal belief, particularly one that they do not personally impose on anyone and have no such authority to do so. Harassing a man not so much for the belief, but for donating a paltry sum to a pro-Prop 8 group back in 2008. I mean, really? This is what our society is becoming, less free and just as absurd as the authoritarian nanny states of Canada and Europe?

What is wrong with this picture?

It has been asked before, and it is well worth considering, the question as to whether or not same-sex marriage can be compared to issues of racial and gender equality. We thoroughly disagree. There are many issues we are neutral or on the fence about. This is not one of them. We absolutely reject any attempt to conflate the concept of same-sex marriage with racial, ethnic, gender or even sexual equality. We find such a mentality to be offensive and repugnant to the extreme.

None of us have been married, many of us are not likely interested in marriage or will ever get married, thus we have no official position on the matter itself other than to state that we don't consider it a civil rights issue, but a social distortion being used by politicians to distract away from more pertinent and immediate issues, such as poverty, famine, disease, genocide, and war.

There are more poor people in the world today than ever before. Poverty is not declining, it is spreading like wildfire across the world, including right here in the United States. There are more people dying of famine and disease than ever before, with many countries having little to no infrastructure to allow for clean drinking water, efficient and productive agriculture, or even proper education. There are still countries where children have no rights, where little girls and women can be forced into marriage and/or sold into sexual slavery, the latter also applying to boys. There are societies in which if a boy or man is raped or sexually assaulted, no one, not even the authorities, will do a single thing and will instead chop their heads off for having their "manhood" violated.

Right here in the United States there are communities—White, Black, and Native American—that are mere shanty towns, lacking running water, sewage and waste systems, regular employment, and other luxuries and privileges most of us take for granted.

We live in a society where rapists, sexual predators and child molesters are rarely given stiff or long-term sentences. There are vastly more individuals in the American prison system for drug use and petty thievery than there are for sex crimes. More women, men and children are raped and sexually assaulted with each passing year, while the statistics for rape and sexual assault in prisons are even worse.

There are more political dissidents in American prisons than at any other time in US history, the most recent widely known example being that of Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning. Radical advocates of open societies and government transparency like Julian Assange are routinely hunted and demonized by our government and others.

School shootings, mass murders, child kidnapping, forced prostition, and domestic assaults have been on the rise since the late 1990s.

Our government sells billions of dollars a year to state-sponsors of terror like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain, all of which have close relations with Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including the Taliban. The People's Republic of China effectively dominates the American and Western economies, while the vast majority of Western aid aid to African nations ends up in the the hands of genocidal warlords and despots.

There are countries where those who are or are considered to be homosexual (even if in reality they are not) are routinely imprisoned, tortured and executed. Even in countries where same-sex marriage has been legalized, violence and discrimination against LGBTQ people remains high—there is likewise a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance. There is not much point in legalized same-sex marriage when the vast majority of any given population remain opposed to LGBTQ identities and relationships.

Many, if not most, large gay and lesbian civil rights organizations actively discriminate against bisexual, intersexed and transgendered individuals. Many gays and lesbians themselves, as well as feminists (mostly of the second wave), discriminate against intersexed and transgendered individuals to the extent that under other circumstances would be viewed as constituting hate crimes. Transgendered and bisexual individuals are violently and/or sexually assaulted ten to a hundred times more often that gay and lesbian individuals, yet most gay and lesbian activists do little to nothing and often trivialize such matters. Even in our present "progressive" era, intersexed and transgendered individuals are forced to undergo often harsh and brutal psychiatric "evanluation and treatment" before being allowed to legally transition to the opposite gender.

In many Western countries, an individual publicly identifying themselves as being of a particular faith tradition or wearing religious clothing or ornaments can be legally fired or forced to resign without being able to sue for discrimination. Even though in the United States religious people constitute a majority, there are more laws prohibiting and negatively regulating religious practice than there are protections. Outside of the United States, genuine religious freedom is rare and more often than not, non-existent. In many countries, including many European states, minority religious groups and even mainstream Christian denominations are actively kept under surveillance and prosecuted for even harmless religious practices, and often prevented from working as civil servants or holding political office.

Is this all a bad joke? Is this the "democracy" we are all paying for with our tax dollars, the kind of "democracy" we want to forcibly export to foreign nations?

The case of Brendan Eich highlights not only the further decline of Western civilization into debased political correctness and Kafkaesque absurdity, but proves the fact that life is, more often than not, stranger than fiction.

When will we awaken from such dystopian daydreaming and finally establish a civil society wherein respect for the inalienable right to freedom of thought is enshrined as a basic and inviolable human right

We are human beings. We have the right to think and believe what we want, so long as we are not murdering, imprisoning or sexually violating each other in the name of such beliefs.

There is no legitimate comparison between a person who advocates racial hatred and/or violence and someone who opposes same-sex marriage. Such comparisons are not only criminally absurd, but nauseating to anyone with a brain.

Before we can take on such issues that are the product of Western affluence, jaded hedonism and privilege, is it possible to first solve the problems of poverty and establish a truly open society based upon social justice and true social equilibrium?

Is marriage a right or a privilege? Is the issue of marriage more important than the issues of poverty, disease, genocide and perpetual war? Is it more important to debate marriage and spend countless tax dollars debating it or to debate more vital and pressing issues and using our tax dollars to solve the most critical and existential problems of society and the world at large?

At what point do we not only say, "Enough!" but put that statement into action and first fix what is broken before attempting to set into motion radically new social and cultural paradigms?

This is supposed to be America, so let us at least pretend it is and that we are actually Americans who have the freedom to be free.

Anti-free speech bigots believe their boycott of Eich was a "victory"—a Pyrrhic victory if ever there was one

A simple Google search reveals the pathetic extent of how deeply insecure anti-Eich bigots happen to be. Almost all of them are patting each other on their backs, proclaiming within their own circles that the anti-Eich boycott (which they falsely refer to as an anti-Mozilla boycott—yeah, right! The target was never Mozilla, but always and only Brendan Eich) has been an astounding success and they should all be proud of themselves for forcing Mr Eich out of the company and foundation he helped to build.

Astounding success, eh? You know, you can repeat that mantra as much as you all want, it won't ever make it true. Not in a million years. It is so insanely clear that these weirdo anti-Eich fanatics are living in the tiniest, most intellectually and rationally devoid bubble we've ever encountered in a long time.

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Let's look at this absurdly surrealist behaviour on their part and carefully observe exactly how they are writing about Brendan Eich. I'm not going to bother linking to their verbal sewage, but I'm sure just about everyone reading this has encountered plenty of this garbage, and if you haven't, a simple Google search for "Brendan Eich" or "Boycott Mozilla" and so on will bring about a fair number of samples interspersed between pro-Eich sentiments.

Ever heard of cognitive dissonance? These jokers are certainly full of it. Imagine, for a moment, if the way these bigots were talking about happened to be directed toward Tim Berners-Lee, Marc Andreessen, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Vannevar Bush, Vint Cerf, or any of the other key personalities involved in either the computer revolution or the Internet revolution or both.

Between all these different individuals—and I cannot stress the heavy importance of the term individual enough—you will not likely find any common ground as regards most political and social issues. After all, we're human beings, and as such, most of us have enough of a mind that we feel free to hold differing viewpoints. I hate to break it to any of the idiot fascists and authoritarians out there, but you cannot suppress or oppress the human mind nor the human spirit. In the end, humanity will always win in the face of all forms of inhumanity and misanthropy, including the authoritarian attempts to turn us into Orwellian slaves of some surreal dystopia. Dream on, idiots. The collectivist "paradise" of absolute conformism is never, ever going to happen. The fact that the majority of Americans end up zealously revolting against their local, state and federal governments whenever their so-called "representatives" start going overboard with the anti-citizen oppression and authoritarianism is evidence enough to demonstrate that America will not ever become a full-on totalitarian regime no matter how hard the Executive Branch and their Congressional allies try to implement such draconian measures. Deal with it.

But there are a few things every single one of those aforementioned individuals had and have in common: every single one of them, regardless of however they identified themselves politically—liberal, conservative, moderate, apolitical, anarchist, libertarian, or whatever other -isms human beings can think up—shared certain fundamental beliefs in common:

  • that freedom of speech and thought is absolute and inalienable
  • that freedom of thought and respect and tolerance for differing viewpoints is fundamental to sustaining a civilized society
  • that no one should be ever be persecuted or prosecuted for their beliefs, nor lose their job due to opposing the status quo or holding unpopular viewpoints, so long as such beliefs do not involve the advocacy of criminality or violence against others, i.e. slavery, ethnic or religious discrimination, racial hatred, sexual crimes, and other such similar barbarisms.

You will not find a single person on that list who would agree with discriminating against another human being on the basis of their race, skin color, national origin, religion (or lack thereof), gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation.

Vannevar Bush, the undisputed godfather of the Internet and the Information Age in general, would by today's standards be considered very conservative (more likely in the classical sense [Barry Goldwater, for example] rather than today's neoconservativism which is radically different) and perhaps even hawkish, considering his status as a founder of Raytheon and one of the principle figures of the Manhattan Project and his advocacy of a strong national defense, within reason. He was certainly no Edward Teller, but neither was he a pacifist like Albert Einstein. Yet this man almost singlehandedly established the philosophical foundation that led DARPA to initiate the network that would ultimately become known as the Internet. We've heard a lot over the years about Marshall McLuhan (I am personally not a fan of "the medium is the message," but nevermind), but we rarely ever hear about Vannevar Bush.

Let me put it this way. Without Vannevar Bush, there would be no Internet. As an interesting aside, back in the nineties there was a trollish meme revolving around the idea of "Al Gore invented the Internet"—while this kind of trolling was ridiculous, there is no question that Al Gore was virtually one of the only bureaucrats in Congress who consistently supported extensive funding for DARPA and its various bleeding edge projects, including the Internet. Without Gore, it is quite possible the Internet would never have survived the eighties—while President Reagan was always a consistent supporter of DARPA, Vice President George H. W. Bush did not exactly share such sentiments and would've likely canceled most such DARPA projects, including SDI research and development, had he been able to do so. While Bush Sr did successfully sabotage and ultimately dismantle SDI (which, ironically, was resurrected under a different, less radical form under President George W. Bush and continues under the current administration), are fortunate that most DARPA projects survived. In other words, it would not be incorrect to state that Al Gore saved the Internet. Just ask Vint Cerf.

But you know what? Back then, Al Gore wasn't exactly the paragon of liberalism that many people view him as since the Clinton administration. Even now, his social liberalism has its limits, and as with most Democratic politicians, including President Barack Obama, it has only been in very recent years that they have reversed course on many LGBTQ issues, including same-sex marriage. And yet there still are many in the Democratic Party who will not budge on the issue or goose step in line with the party line, and whatever anyone wants to think, they all have the right to support or oppose whatever issue or policy they want.

Similarly, Steve Jobs was never the radical, commune-loving hippie he was often made out to be, which by the way was one of the accusations leveled at him by the Apple board following the disastrous entry of John Sculley into the company. Outwardly, Jobs was for a time something of a hippie, as were many engineers, programmers, scientists, mathematicians and hobbyists of the era. While his social views were for the most part liberal, he was not a radical, nor was he ever a socialist or in favor of any legislation that would be harmful to business and the growth of free enterprise. Conservative critics of Steve Jobs would do well to note that he was a huge fan of President Reagan and had a very close relationship with many figures in the Pentagon, including DARPA. Many Apple technologies developed under his watch actually originated from DARPA, one of the most recent examples being Siri.

I could go on and on in this vein. The point is that while they all had differing viewpoints on many issues, and many of them have swung back and forth across the political spectrum over the years (as most humans do—it is rare than someone maintains a consistent political identity set firmly in stone), you could not get any one of these individuals to support the insane and appalling bigotry leveled at Brendan Eich.

It's almost unbelievable to me, but not even the CEO of Chick-fil-A (a devout Christian who opposes same-sex marriage) or the CEO and Founder of Whole Foods (who opposes socialized or universal healthcare and heavy taxation) have ever been attacked or vilified in the manner that Mr Eich has been. For heavens sake, not even Whole Foods management or employees attacked their CEO and Founder or tried to get him ousted! Can you imagine?

Well, it's not that hard to figure out and it goes beyond the simple fact that Mozilla management has a good number of incompentents and mental defectives doing a wonderful job of doing all they can to run the show into the ground, and certainly more than its fair share of mentally ill and hopelessly insecure employees among the rank-and-file. No, it goes well above and beyond all of this.

The fact is that Mozilla's management has been on a roller coaster of catastrophic motion the past few years. The level of mismanagement, bureaucratic idiocy and gross incompetence rival that of the fictional Teldar Paper corporation. And Mozilla isn't even a for-profit entity! The fact is Brendan Eich was appointed CEO to save the company from its own self-destruction. This is a fact that cannot be denied. Don't believe me? Look for yourself and what you will find, I assure you, will shock the hell out of you if you haven't been keeping up with the news.

Brendan Eich is a serious mensch, a truly decent human being, because he was willing to roll up his sleeves and do whatever he could to clean up the company, clean up its products, and get them all back on course. That meant getting Mozilla employees and managers to confront some very inconvenient truths that they'd been hiding and running away from for years, above all else the fact that Firefox, its flagship product and once the dominant Web browser across the planet and the force that nearly destroyed Internet Explorer, had increasingly become one of the shoddiest, most insecure Web browsers of all time, to such an extent that for the last few years, Internet Explorer has generally been considered a far superior and more secure browser than Firefox. I'm definitely not a fan of IE and I never use it, but the facts speak for themselves and dozens of neutral parties and hacktivists have demonstrably proven that Firefox has been consistently ranked as the least secure browser among the major players of the browser industry: Google Chrome, Apple Safari, and Internet Explorer. Even other browsers that are not widely used or mostly confined to certain countries and regions, such as Opera and Yandex, have been proven to be far more secure and safer than Firefox.

Simply put, Firefox sucks, SeaMonkey sucks even more (one more bloated than the other), and even though Brendan Eich tried to the right thing and save Mozilla from its own inevitable demise into mediocrity and bankruptcy, they not only bit the hand that fed and treated them generously and fairly as human beings rather than mere employees, but they even attempted to throw him to the lions and permanently destroy his reputation and livelihood.

In this world, and in our society in particular, there is such a thing as manners, civility and justice. Mozilla and its employees and management have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they lack these qualities and have absolutely no class whatsoever. There is no escaping the inevitability of justice and righteousness.

Mr Eich, humanity stands with you, history is firmly on your side, and mark my words, Mozilla is well on its way toward its grave. They're just too stupid to confront the truth.

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

—George Orwell

Mozilla opposes freedom in a free society. Well, we oppose their authoritarianism.

Do we live in a free society? We don't believe we do. If, as human beings, we did in fact live in a truly free society, such a society would be one in which all of us are free to agree or disagree with each other, however which way we choose to do so.

Freedom in a free society means having the inalienable right to oppose the status quo, to disagree with the majority or the minority on whatever issue, without living in fear of retribution of any sort.

Yet, in the United States today, in spite of all the advancements and progress we have made as a supposedly democratic and pluralistic society, scapegoating, blacklisting and witch-hunting are still practiced as zealously today as they were during the Red Scare of the 1920s, McCarthyism and the Hollywood Blacklist of the 1940s and 1950s, and the antidemocratic state oppressions against antiwar and prodemocracy protesters from the 1960s to this very day.

No rational, sane human being has ever willingly and voluntarily signed up for such excesses and witch-hunts. When the State goes overboard in this regard, not a single person is surprised. We expect the State to behave in such a way because most of us view governments as being inherently authoritarian, whether for better or for worse.

What we do not expect is for the private sector to behave in this way and indulge in such authoritarian excesses. That is not the American way, and this is not the America we believe in.

The America we believe in, the America that we dream of, is an America in which a private citizen has the inalienable right to take a political or social position without fearing the loss of their life, dignity, reputation, and livelihood.

Brendan Eich is such a private citizen. Along with his good friend and colleague Marc Andreessen, Mr Eich is one of the key pioneers of the World Wide Web to have arisen from the hallowed halls of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and was one of the principal developers and engineers at Netscape from its earliest days on through its transition into the Mozilla Foundation. He is the inventor of JavaScript, the foundation upon which most of the contemporary Web today is built upon. Indeed, Mr Eich has been consistently ranked amongst the top visionaries of the Internet, correctly forecasting the inevitable supremacy of dynamic and highly efficient platforms such as JavaScript that are transforming the contemporary Internet landscape and gradually pushing older, inferior platforms as PHP into obsolescence.

None of this is in dispute. Yet, despite this lofty and highly respected status, in spite of all his years of hard work, sacrifice, altruism and committment in building the contemporary Internet, he has been forced out of the very foundation he helped build from the ground up.

Why?

Because he dared to have an opinion contrary to that enshrined by the authoritarian status quo. Like many Americans, Mr Eich disagreed with the idea of same-sex marriage, a thoroughly modern and revisionist conception of a historically religious and heterosexual institution, as was his right to do so. Mr Eich has no bias or animus toward those involved in same-sex relationships, nor does he harbor any prejudices against LGBTQ individuals in general. Indeed, as with virtually all Internet pioneers, Mr Eich's views on gender and sexual minorities is far more progressive than even most of his harshest critics.

Nevermind the fact that many LGBTQ individuals oppose same-sex marriage for the same reason many atheists, agnostics, and feminists have opposed it: because marriage is, above all else, not only a heterosexual institution, but a religious and spiritual institution. From the dawn of civilization, when human beings first began to organize themselves along ethnic, cultural and religious divisions, marriage developed as a patriarchal heterosexual institution mandated by the religious authorities as a divinely ordained legal arrangement between one man and one woman. This is a fact that not only predates modern secular civilizations by many thousands of years, but also Abrahamic civilizations, when the universal legend of the Great Flood had not even entered the global consciousness and stone idols were the dominant deities of humanity.

People can choose to believe what they want. Facts are facts, and history is history. Reality cannot and will not be denied. If Mr Eich had been a LGBTQ individual himself, would he have been forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla Corporation? How would Mr Eich's hateful and bigoted critics have responded if he happened to be a thoroughly secular materialist opposed to all forms and representations of patriarchy, which happens to include the institution of marriage?

Ponder this irony: Feminism has traditionally been opposed to all institutions of patriarchal origin, in particular such institutions that are legally and/or socially oppressive. Marriage has generally been at the top of that list. During the second-wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, less radical and more conservative forms of feminism developed that attempted to reintrepret marriage outside the historic paradigm of patriarchy, which was controversial enough that radical activists and the third-wave of feminism that began developing in the 1980s revolted against this revisionism of history and society. Radical feminism, in general, does not believe that institutions such as marriage can ever be fair, democratic, or equal, and thus can never be separated from its patriarchal origins. In other words, from their viewpoint, you can put lipstick on a pig, but ultimately, it's still very much a pig.

Yet, if Mr Eich did indeed subscribe to such radical and widely unpopular notions, would he have been singled out for bigoted harassment, political scapegoating and forced termination of employment? The fact that he resigned is irrelevant—any executive will tell you, when the status quo wants you out, they will go to whatever lengths necessary to make your life as uncomfortable as possible until you agree to resign your position. In this way, high level executives are also prevented from collecting unemployment benefits and other such concessions.

Make no mistake, the issue at hand is not whether Mr Eich's positions on same-sex marriage are correct or incorrect. The issue at hand is whether or not someone like Mr Eich should be blacklisted, scapegoated and crucified like a witch in our allegedly progressive era. This is not progress. This is not America.

This is nothing short of tyranny, and we call upon all rational Americans to respond to tyranny the same way our forefathers did at Boston Harbor—but instead of dumping tea overboard, dump Mozilla and all their products, such as the Firefox web browser, into the dustbin of history.