Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Large Corporates Shift Toward Free Speech

Tuesday, December 5th, 2017

Yesterday, Disqus CEO Matthew Prince announced his commitment to free speech. Today however Disqus announced that it was being purchased by Zeta Global, a large interactive services company.

The relationship we have with publishers like you is important to us. So we want to share this news with you directly. Disqus is now part of Zeta Global, a marketing technology company that helps leading brands acquire, retain and grow customer relationships.

Don’t worry. We still are and will remain the same Disqus that you know and use. Our team, our product offerings, terms, pricing, and vision to help you succeed remain the same. We know that digital publishing landscape is changing rapidly and third party platforms are making it harder for publishers to control their own destinies. Our goal is to help you navigate this landscape successfully. Joining Zeta helps us achieve this goal and provide more value for publishers like you.

We plan to do this through continued investment in audience development tools to help you create, retain, and grow relationships with your readers. We recently outlined our roadmap and vision and would love to hear your feedback.

The implications of this are staggering: there is no way that the buyout happened suddenly in twelve hours, so Zeta Global approved of this statement and may in fact have requested it as part of the negotiations for the merger or purchase. Corporate America realizes that in the end, people do not like politically correct censorship. Maybe the rest of the world will stumble to this realization too.

As Diversity Fails, Europe Intensifies Censorship While America Backs Off

Monday, June 19th, 2017

Someone ran over some Muslims in England yesterday. The Muslims, sensitive to optics and public relations moments, quickly made a big show of being peaceful despite having been attacked in front of a mosque known for its extremist sentiments. They know the voters are stupid and plan to take them for the fools they are and use them as useful idiots in their war against non-Muslim civilization.

In the meantime, the circus ringmasters of the useful idiot herd started up with the sentimental and strong statements designed to pacify the sheep for another good fleecing in the next election. That included applying anesthesia in the form of action to conceal the problem, so that the voters can go back to sleep in the blaze of glory that is themselves:

It was the latest in a series of statements from Ms May that suggest she believes recent attacks have strengthened the case for her widely-criticised plans to regulate the online world.

Those plans include launching a massive crackdown on internet security so messages on apps such as WhatsApp can be accessed more easily by authorities, and censorship of what can be published online.

England has experienced three Muslim terrorist attacks in a row and one white guy hitting a few people with a van. This shows that whatever the UK is doing is not working, but admitting that requires the voters to admit they were wrong, which means they were manipulated, which means they have lost. So what will they do?

Like all primates, they will double down. To reverse course is to admit error, and especially at the lower end of the IQ curve, people hate to do that. Instead of looking at the issue of terrorism and diversity, which really is a single issue when you think about it, they will focus on the best way to sprinkle gold dust on the disaster and proclaim themselves strong, independent voters who don’t need no logic.

In the meantime, as if in concert, Google and the other big internet monopolists are planning to increase censorship on their services:

Google and YouTube will:

  • Use “more engineering resources to apply our most advanced machine learning research to train new ‘content classifiers’ to help us more quickly identify and remove such content.”
  • Expand YouTube’s Trusted Flagger program by adding 50 independent, “expert” non-governmental organizations to the 63 groups already part of it. Google will offer grants to fund the groups.
  • Take a “tougher stance on videos that do not clearly violate our policies — for example, videos that contain inflammatory religious or supremacist content.” Such videos will “appear behind a warning” and will not be “monetized, recommended or eligible for comments or user endorsements.”
  • Expand YouTube’s efforts in counter-radicalization. “We are working with Jigsaw to implement the ‘redirect method’ more broadly across Europe. This promising approach harnesses the power of targeted online advertising to reach potential Isis recruits, and redirects them towards anti-terrorist videos that can change their minds about joining.” A Google spokeswoman said Jigsaw’s “redirect method” is already in use in the US.

Google, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have all stepped up their censorship policies of late. They claim they intend to crack down on terrorism, and maybe they will. But as the bolded words above indicate, their real target is to crack down on any Right-wing speech by declaring that it is supremacist, extremist or otherwise anti-social. They have been doing this for years.

They are doing this because the EU has demanded this crackdown on anti-diversity speech after events like the Cologne rapefest of New Years’ Eve, or subsequent terror attacks. The EU is becoming unstable because people share anti-immigrant and anti-diversity sentiment on social media, and so they are demanding (yet again) that social media censor its users.

No social media will escape this, because the EU will fine or block these social media services within its borders if they do not comply, forcing them to comply with its censorship or lose huge chunks of income.

In EU states, people are regularly arrested for posting anti-diversity messages, but this makes the EU states look bad, so instead they are using their broad regulatory powers to force the social media services to comply.

This enables the EU to cover up how badly its policies are failing. The voters really just want to go back to sleep, and if they stop seeing alarming messages, they will bed down in the paddock for a good rest before another day of grazing and dodging sheepdogs. But the broader concern is that speech laws are being taken into the realm of health and safety laws, where they are invisible.

On the other hand, in American the Supreme Court took a strong stand for freedom of speech, mainly because it can since the real censorship these days is being done in de facto public spaces like social media that are nonetheless owned by private parties, thus not regulated by the First Amendment:

In his opinion on the case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.'”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a separate opinion, echoed Alito’s sentiments. “A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional,'” Kennedy wrote, continuing to say, “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.”

“The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society,” he concluded.

The best decisions are those which change nothing but grab headlines, and the Supreme Court has done that. The United States has strengthened free speech in public, perhaps, but not necessarily on private college campuses or private services like Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Netflix and Skype.

EU governments are experts at the shakedown. All they need is one law that says they can suspend, fine, or stop your service and the entire market of the EU is shut down to your company. Using this tool, they will invisibly force these companies to censor content, so that while technically we have free speech, in the places where people talk, nothing of the sort will exist.

Against Free Speech

Saturday, May 27th, 2017

What does “free speech” mean?  Like any “human right,” it is only vaguely defined: people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and should not be prevented from doing so.  

The definition immediately raises questions.  What about screaming “fire” in a crowded theater?  That has obvious immediate harmful effects, and so everyone is comfortable marring the clean absolute freedom with caveats to the effect that it only applies in reasonable situations.  A crack in the clarity of the freedom appears, and soon a gang of subsequent exceptions crowd in, widening the rend until the whole thing collapses and leaves behind a garish rubble heap of political correctness and hate speech.  

Now the new and improved definition of free speech goes as follows: people should be allowed to say whatever conforms to the prevailing narratives, and the government shouldn’t stop them in an obvious way, unless it’s hate speech, and in that case they should go to jail.”

This colossal failure gives us a chance to reassess.

What is our intent with free speech?  What state are we aiming towards, what is our goal?  What is it about free speech that we like, and is free speech the best vessel for that?

What we want is an absence of restrictions while pursuing and creating truth, virtue, and beauty.

Free speech is an absence of restrictions for anyone while pursuing anything.

When stated this way, the indiscriminate egalitarian nature of free speech becomes obvious.  Egalitarianism is so deeply ingrained and reinforced at nearly every moment in the modern environment that it takes us deliberate effort to even recognize its presence.  Since it is inherently false–humans are not equal; equality is a concept outside of the natural world and only makes sense in a purely abstract setting like mathematics–its presence will always confuse, misdirect, and corrupt.

In this case, defending the right of anyone to say anything is not the best path towards truth, virtue, and goodness.  At best, it’s an awkward, flawed method of sneaking in true, good, and beautiful speech along with a torrent of what is effectively noise.  It’s an inherently egalitarian strategy for overcoming or holding back the more obviously destructive excesses of egalitarianism, and so ensures its own failure by having a foundation upon the force that it is meant to oppose.

Let’s cut to the point.  The best path towards truth, virtue, and goodness is simply to uphold those directly.  Since these are not recognizable to all, and some can recognize them better than others, this requires hierarchy.  In the egalitarian mindset, this is seen as unfair, because some are treated differently than others, but once human differences are taken into account and egalitarianism is rejected, it becomes clear that in fact the only way to be fair is to treat some differently than others in accordance with their differing natures.

When “speech” is not treated as a singular, indivisible abstract concept we become able to separate signal from noise because different subsets of society will have different criteria for what is considered noise.  Some will hear a Bach fugue as a meaningless jumble of frantic notes and others will hear a pop song with as much interest as a washing machine, but this only becomes a problem when there’s only one radio station.

Similarly, when the task of governing is justly assigned to those who are most suited to perform the task well, whose traits include a greater ability to recognize truth, there is less noise amongst the group than there would be if it included everyone, some of whom are less able to recognize truth.  And when this latter group is not burdened unjustly with reigns of power it is not suited to hold, there is less cause for concern when it produces speech that strays from truth.  Overall, as a side-effect, this allows for greater freedom of speech for all because there is less need to police speech.

Under current conditions, free speech is often a useful tool that can overcome restrictions against true speech, virtuous speech, and beautiful speech.  Let us not mistake the method for the ultimate goal.

If You Were Uncertain About Whether You Live Under Totalitarianism, Now You Know

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

The Baby Boomers may have been the first generation to expose America to autocracy. That was the idea that if you had the money, you should be able to do whatever you wanted; this clashed with the WASP idea that good money should do what was right, and arose from the mixing of different European groups in the United States, removing that WASP order.

Autocracy is power for its own sake, as opposed to aristocracy in which power is a means-to-an-end, namely the idea of avoiding bad fates and promoting good possibilities. It corresponds to Plato’s transcendentalism-infused statement of “good to the good, and bad to the bad” as a high civil ideal.

But when that perished, the idea of autocracy took on a new form: people who wanted things done a certain way so that they did not offend the sensibilities of the herd, which had gotten together and agreed on what should be true, in its view, rather than what could be done with what was actually true.

In that moment, bourgeois sensibilities about keeping up appearances merged with Leftist dogma and the commonsense pacifism of socially diverse places which consists of offending no one and always pandering to whatever fascinates the group at that moment. We might call this “carny ethics” because essentially, it is a variant of the old circus maxim that “the show must go on.”

Since that time, we have been gaily tripping into decentralized totalitarianism while congratulating ourselves on being precious little ethical snowflakes. Surprise! Suddenly you have a society where people are jailed for Facebook posts, in a modernized take on the Soviet approach:

An extremist who made anti-semitic comments and shared Hitler imagery online has been jailed for four years.

Lawrence Burns, 26, had earlier been found guilty of two charges of inciting racial hatred in a string of provocative Facebook posts in 2014.

Again: his only crime was having the wrong opinion… and typing it on a keyboard somewhere that spread it to other people. They might be offended. That means customers would leave, the circus would fail, and we might appear to be less upstanding and self-righteous citizens than our neighbors in the suburbs. Crisis!

In the meantime, real crimes are not being prosecuted because they might make us all look bad, and then the show could not go on. Witness this tragicomedy of justice from the UK where rapists get cautions instead of sentences:

In the last five years, police forces in England and Wales cautioned 45 adults for rape and 1,585 for sexual assault, The Mirror reports.

Over the same period, 148 children were cautioned for rape and 606 for sexual assault.

There were also 745 adults and 185 children cautioned for indecent exposure.

Welcome to the upside-down world where individualism rules. Instead of having a goal in common, and cooperating and using power as a means-to-an-end of that goal, we are goals in ourselves and power is a goal in itself. Appearance rules over fact. We respond more to symbolic sleights than to real threats. And so all societies go, when they extinguish themselves.

#SpeakFreely — If You Have The Will To Shoot To Kill

Sunday, April 30th, 2017

I can save your family about $300K. Don’t send your precocious and brilliant young Xerox Copy off to UC Berkeley. It not only won’t enhance his intellect, it will pointedly and deliberately enstupidate him into compliance with the dictates of The Inner SWPL Party.

One thing universities aren’t really big on is Free Speech. That Free Speech Movement is something Berkeley just flushed down the toilet. And the Real Conservatives who go around beating their chests about “Muh Free Speech”? Laugh at those contemptable Cuckwads.

“As of 4:00 p.m. today, Young America’s Foundation will not be moving forward with an event at Berkeley on April 27 due to the lack of assurances for protections from foreseeable violence from unrestrained leftist agitators,” they continued. “Berkeley should be ashamed for creating this hostile atmosphere.”

Ashamed? Flipping Ashamed? To quote Amerikan Tennis Thug John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”

Terrorists do not perform acts of terrorism out of desperation. They do not perform them out of rage. The man who led the 9-11 suicide attacks had a degree in Mechanical Engineering. Terrorism is studied, calculated and tactical. Terrorists do terrorism, because as long as Cucks are allowed to make important decisions; it will always work like hell.

And this unmitigated, fumiferous bull-spit about you having rights. You get rights from an antipodal place from where you get eternal salvation. Jesus saves your sorry @$$ by grace. The state lets you have rights to the extent that they find it expedient and convenient*. When the self-regarding, smug and arrogant state finds the costs of your whiney, pathetic and self-indulgent rights greater than the social cohesion they gain from protecting them, then you retain the subset of those rights that you feel personally inclined to shoot other people with handguns in order to persevere. Do I really need to mention that UC Berkeley is emphatically gun free?

So all liberals ever have to do in order to shut you up is to make it expensive and painful for the authorities to allow you free speech. Flip that cost-benefit number into the red, and the Cuckservatives will give the liberals the duct tape with which you will be rudely silenced. The Leftists at Berkeley are not ashamed of their hostile atmosphere. They would suffer a far greater humiliation if Ann Coulter were allowed speak there without being stoned (the kind with rocks, not cannabinoids) on the campus commons. That hostile environment? It got ‘er the fck done! The hostile atmosphere at Berkeley is to UC President, Janet Napolitano what the smell of napalm in the morning was to Col. Kilgore.

Cucks enable liberal thugs. They cower in the corner saying “shame, shame, shame” like the Church Lady in Game of Thrones. Do I need to remind these idiot Cucks what Cersei Lannister did to that character when she got tired of being told to be ashamed? That’s what the typical Lefty would enjoy doing to a loathsome Cuckservative as soon as the cost of their continued charade about those stupid rights gets to be greater than the social cohesion gains of providing them. You have the rights you are willing to die for. No more rights, no fewer.


* — That’s about as close as Democracy ever gets to a state of grace, kiddoes.

Deranged Twitter Suspends Philosopher Nick Land For Unknown Reasons

Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

The crisis over social media is reaching epic proportions: these sites, which are the new public spaces of globally connected world, are technically owned by those who paid for the servers, code, electricity, bandwidth and staff to run them; however, they are needed for the free exchange of information by people worldwide.

As of today, Twitter has suspended the account of Nick Land, a paleolibertarian philosopher who writes on topics including Neoreaction and Anarcho-Capitalism or things very much like them. Many of his posts concern seasteading, economics, the downfall of liberal democracy and the rise of tribalism.

However, the glitch is that Land is not an extremist — in fact, he is the opposite, in that he approaches questions from an analytical viewpoint from a historical and economic perspective, instead of the kind of personal or ethnic focus that many have adopted. In this way, Twitter is shooting itself in the foot by removing sensible voices and allowing the emotional to crowd the discourse.

Perhaps this is a first step toward justifying further attacks on the non-Left by removing the intellectual forces that keep non-Leftist dialogue anchored, giving the more radical fringe power, so that it can then be targeted and banned. Either way, this is a great loss for all on Twitter who value thinking about the next stage of history instead of cheerleading for the recently past one.

Milo Crucified

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

Amerika draws together conservatives from across the board including mainstream conservatives. One of the best of those, Andrew Breitbart, opined that Leftists enjoyed destroying people. This leads them to enjoy smashing down people who say the “wrong” thing, because it eliminates facts that compete with their worldview.

I have no idea what Milo Yiannopoulos said about young boys, or whether he was serious, since almost everything he has said tends to be a mixture of tongue-in-cheek satire, trolling and hatefacts designed to rile the Left. At that, he is a master: he drives Leftists to tantrums that they cannot control, which increases support for the right. But that makes it hard to tell serious ideas from banter.

However, it seems evident that we on the Right need a higher standard of behavior. Making off-color jokes or observations about bathhouse behavior are not grounds for summoning a lynch mob and crucifying the offending person; in fact, nothing is. We men of the West stand for rule of law and decisions made by our best people, not a reckless mob smashing lives and reputations.

Whatever Milo said, it pales in comparison to what Leftists do. It also is most likely taken out of context and not as serious as the “moral majority” types want it to be. Most likely, it is part of his shtick — do I have to put the ((( echo ))) marks around that word? — in which he is a loony cosmopolitan snarky gay guy who happens to be almost as right-wing as Charlemagne.

If we are adults… if we are responsible… if we are sane… then our first step when some kerfuffle like this happens is to wait until everyone calms down. Monkeys in the wild will intensity emotion among the troupe by repeating shrieks and banging stones on each other. That is what is happening here. The herd wants to spin out of control, emotionally, so it can indulge its dark passions.

We can always look into his statements in detail later, after the panic and frenzy is over. With a cold sober eye and compassion not just for the people involved, but for the intangibles, such as the past, present and future of our civilization and its values. It may be that at that point, we see something so flawed he must go. But that is a different act than letting the mob rise within us.

The Left destroys lives; the Right should not join them in this terrible habit of mistaking tantrums for reality. The Left spends much of its time crucifying people for their words so that it can scare others into joining the herd and being good, obedient and conformist tools:

Cheriese Rhode, 29, allegedly posted a message last week encouraging citizens to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents of those believed to be in the country without proper documentation.

…The message spawned phone calls, emails and visits to the Prosser School District, where 62 percent of students are Hispanic, the Tri-City Herald reported.

“Due to possible safety and security concerns, as well as concern for disruption of the school environment, this teacher has been placed on administrative leave pending (an) investigation,” Prosser Superintendent Ray Tolcacher said in a statement.

Notice the fear here: the superintendent is afraid that the crowd will rise up for his head, so he decapitates one beneath himself. Order restored? Not really, because this is the appearance of order instead of actual order, which would respond with corrections and not amputations. What we are seeing is the absence of order and a population ruled by terror of saying the wrong thing.

When we rush to judgment, we form a mob that then can have only one purpose, which is to destroy the career and support system for another human being. Mobs love destruction because it makes them feel powerful and they delight in not being accountable. This is why the only speech they tolerate is that which encourages destruction, and someone whose speech is in the majority positive will be hunted down for a few comments that are presumed not to be balanced out by the massive amount of good they have done by speaking out.

Contrast what is happening to Milo to a current instance of Leftist claims of censorship that are in fact motivated by a very different purpose than silencing a public voice:

The phones, voicemail machines and email inboxes at the Berkeley Unified School District have been flooded with calls about Felarca, said Charles Burress, spokesman for the district. The main office of Martin Luther King Jr. Middle School, where Felarca teaches, has been swamped as well.

…In August, the district went into Felarca’s bank account and withdrew the equivalent of 25.17 days of pay, according to the lawsuit. The district had retroactively un-approved a number of sick and personal days Felarca had taken “claiming that employees could not use their personal leave days to attend political protests and claiming that Felarca had used them for this purpose,” according to the lawsuit. Felarca has stated she had doctor’s notes for some of the sick days she was absent and that she has the right to attend political rallies.

…Despite glossing over the specifics of her action, Felarca has taken credit for “shutting down” Yiannopolous.

Felarca is a typical Leftist who encourages violence, named her group “By Any Means Necessary” to encourage violence, takes paid leave to go stage violent protests and preaching to her students that they should become involved in violent protests:

In 2009, according to the letter, Felarca “repeatedly solicited students to participate in protests” against a proposed charter school BUSD was considering, despite having been formally reprimanded about involving students in her political activities, and pursuing those activities during the work day.

In other words, she is not being fired for public speech, but for private speech that was inappropriate for the task she is employed to do. In other words, she substituted political spam for what students needed to learn, took time off without regard for the impact on the students, and then used that time to encourage violence and parasitism.

Shutting her down is not the same as silencing Yiannopoulos. Felarca can continue to speak, but will have to do so in a way that does not hurt specific individuals in private; the goal with Yiannopoulos, on the other hand, is to force his speech out of the public sphere because it offends Leftists. For some reason, “conservatives” have joined on this quest, which is ill-advised.

Jewish Self-Hatred And Anti-Semitism

Monday, January 16th, 2017

In light of the recent doxxing fiasco in which members of the Alt Lite, neo-Nazi fringe and far-Left came together to destroy the life of an internet broadcaster, it is time that we on the Alt Right had a conversation about anti-Semitism and other forms of scapegoating.

It is in human nature to scapegoat. We play tennis and score badly, so the racquet is to blame, or maybe the net, possibly the fuzz on those tennis balls from the new brand that we are not yet sure we like. Dinner turned out badly? Must be the chicken, or the stove. These scapegoats live with us because they are plausible, but only tell part of the story in some cases, which means the wrong thing is being blamed.

For example, it is perfectly possible that the stove is really bad, and that the chicken is not great. However, those things alone do not make a bad meal. We knew of those challenges before we started. Also, maybe the racquet is not so good, and the new balls have less bounce. But these things alone can be compensated for. Failures come from several factors, A + B + C, and to blame any subset of that group is to scapegoat.

Scapegoating screws us in two vital ways: we fail to solve our problem, and we create other problems by chasing after the wrong culprit, including the ugly fact that we deplete our energy and will to solve the problem in the miasma of disappointment and confusion that occurs after a non-solution excites the crowd. Scapegoats doom us to perpetuate problems and create new ones.

How do you determine when you are using a scapegoat? The simple test is to correct for the factor you think is to blame and then run the equation again. If you suspect that A is wrong in A + B + C, fix A, and then re-run the test. If you would still end up with failure, or at least still be most likely to fail, then A is a scapegoat, or a contributory cause misidentified as the whole cause.

For this reason, our test for anti-Semitism is this: If all Jews died tomorrow, would our problems cease to be?

Waking up in a world without a Jew would mean that many prominent Leftist figures would be gone, true; it would also mean that the Democratic party would lose its major group of donors, and that Palestinians would both have zero restriction on their movement and no one to target for terrorist attacks. But look what remains.

The West would still be in decline, because we did it to ourselves by pursuing wealth and power instead of moral goodness. We would still have diversity, tolerance, equality, pluralism, neurosis and Leftism among us. Our civilizations would still be in the grips of an undeclared caste war, with a lack of purpose, ruled over by the democracy that makes every truth into a simplistic emotional symbolism that veers away from reality.

We would still have overpopulation, pollution and civilization collapse to wrestle with. Did Jews cause those things? They did not cause civilization collapse in Athens, nor in Tenochtitlan, nor in Chichen Itza, and probably not in Cahokia either. Civilizations tend to die when they become successful, lose purpose, and substitute with ideology and control to keep the franchise going. All civilizations die this way.

For this reason, anti-Semitism is not an accurate depiction of our problems. Worse, it fits into the form of an ideology, and is as addictive as drugs, over-eating, promiscuity or any of the other human pathologies we see around us daily. If allowed among us in a serious form, anti-Semitism becomes a replacement for realistic thinking and will lead us astray.

On the other hand, there are benefits to anti-Semitism as a conversational trope. First, it smashes a sacred cow that impedes nationalism, namely The Holocaust. Second, like most ethnic humor, it is funny because there is usually some truth to stereotypes. Finally, it widens that “Overton window” by allowing us to be critical of other ethnic groups and diversity again.

And when done by talented guys like the The Right Stuff fellows, it becomes a form of unity. People groove on the anger and mockery of a group that has been given perhaps a bit much focus in the years following World War II because of the attempted genocide that occurred during that war. You can fight over the numbers, details, dates, methods… whatever. Something happened, to our shame.

But The Holocaust has become a kind of scapegoat for Jews, too. It forces them to identify as victims, which puts them in a passive-aggressive mental state which will screw up any otherwise thriving group. It removes their initiative toward their own goals, and makes them fear “hypocrisy” for conducting necessary ethnic relocation, like that of Palestinians. The Holocaust is worse for Jews now than it was in 1945; then, it represented the loss of many people, but not the soul of a people. Now, it seems to have replaced Jewish identity with a type of self-pity that makes Jews hate themselves.

Jewish self-hatred is a widely-known phenomenon that tends to shock us goyish types when we see it. But Jews, as a group, are highly intelligent and tend to be very realistic. They know their position is dubious, since they are the results of a wealthy commercial society collapsing and, through miscegenation, converting itself into an Asiatic and African hybrid that will never again be fully European, despite having roots in what looks like populations from Italy and France. Jews also observe the behavior of fellow Jews and, much like white people, are frequently pained by it.

Perhaps the best description of Jewish identity comes from Alt Zionist, who writes of a practical Jewish identity that does not hit either of the erroneous extremes of denying mixed European heritage, or assuming that a unique and vital ethnic group has not been forged:

Instead, it is obvious that to be White is simply to be part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Europe many thousands of years ago, just as to be Jewish is to be a part of a certain group of people who share a common set of ancestors in Judea many thousands of years ago and to be Black is to be part of a certain group of people of people who share a common set of ancestors in West Africa many thousands of years ago. That, at a certain point in the past, various people who had the right sort of ancestry in Europe were not called ‘White’ does not prove that Whiteness is membership in some sort of sinister social club, but only that people used to use the term ‘White’ in a different way than we do now. Analogously, we now consider many more people to be disabled than we once did, and on that basis give many more people disability benefits, but this does not in any way suggest that being disabled just is a matter of receiving disability benefits. Rather, we simply have found that the meaning of the term ‘disabled’ includes many more people than we previously thought it did.

There is much anthropological and philosophical complexity to the question whether racial terms like ‘white’ refer to biological groups or merely social constructs, and it is not my intention to settle the issue here. Rather, I should like to remark only on the disingenuity and hypocrisy of any Jew who adopts Brodkin’s stance on race. For such a Jew, inasmuch as they consider themselves to be White, attains to the privileged position of being able to, just as Brodkin does, decry Whiteness and slander White identity not as a hostile outsider but as an apparently repentant insider. Because Brodkin considers herself White, she must surely feel no compunction in admitting that her Whiteness is something hateful, bigoted and shameful. In other words, Brodkin’s self-identification as White allows her to make attacks on White people and their identity; whether or not these attacks are warranted by historical systems of power and oppression and present-day instutions of privilege is not germane to the issue: what is relevant is that Brodkin takes herself, as a White person, to be in a position to attack other White people.

But unlike the great majority of those White people in attacking whom Brodkin takes herself to be justifed, Brodkin is not truly attacking herself. For Brodkin has a competing identity behind which she can retreat in the face of her own invective: namely, Brodkin identifies also as a Jew. Brodkin’s own fears about anti-Semitism are evidence that she does not see herself as responsible for any history of power, privilege, and oppression, but rather as a precarious minority in the midst of a potentially hostile majority – a minority sometimes accepted as equals, but always separate and in danger of oppression. As such, Brodkin herself does not bear the personal weight of her attacks against White identity, and whatever justification those attacks might have obtained in virtue of her supposed Whiteness is merely disingenuous illusion.

The writer sees the error in assuming that Jews are “white” because it enables them to criticize whites from behind a protective alternate identity, like dual citizenship, where they can claim to be different from what they criticize. This is a dangerous position, and mirrors Theodor Herzl’s observation that to live among a national group and not be of that group would provoke retaliation, as it has with anti-Jewish pogroms in the past. It is bad to be different because each group needs to feel it is the same, and therefore, can work together as a civilization.

It does not take much of a leap to see that much Jewish self-hatred arises from this dual identity. They are mostly European, mixed with Other no more than your average Southern/Irish or Eastern European, but Jews have an identity of their own, which both makes them not “white” (a troublesome vague definition in itself) and part of a group united by commonality.

This duality confuses Jewish identity, and resentment over The Holocaust being the defining factor of modern Jewish life weaponizes the resulting discontent. For this reason, it is not surprising that many of the most virulent anti-Semites have had Jewish heritage. Witness the troubled past of Frank Collin:

Frank Joseph Collin is most often associated in the public mind as the neo-Nazi who threatened in 1977 to march and rally in Skokie, a predominately Jewish suburb of Chicago.

…The Illinois Corrections Department released Collin after three years, a “minimum time served,” from his 1980 conviction of sexually molesting young boys…For Collin’s role in the Marquette Park rallies in Chicago, the pamphlet distribution in Skokie with its “Death To The Jews” message, the media-manipulation after winning a Supreme Court decision allowing Collin to wear a swastika in any neighborhood of his choosing, Collin was never accused of anything other than being a nuisance, nor has he publicly spoken of those years since. Collin was once quoted as saying, “I used it [the First Amendment] at Skokie. I planned the reaction of the Jews. They are hysterical.”

Frank Collin was born in Chicago, Illinois on November 3, 1944. His father, Max Simon Collin (formerly Cohn or Cohen), a Jew who is said to have spent time in the Dachau concentration camp, may have had a major impact on his life. On Chicago television, one Illinois psychiatrist interviewed Collin during his neo-Nazi period and found him to be consumed with a “hatred for his father,” and thought Collin’s proposed Skokie march was, in effect, “an anti-Collin demonstration.”

Most people do not know that Up to 150,000 Jewish-descended people fought for Hitler and that many were decorated for their contributions. This leads to the obvious question of why someone who is partially or wholly Jewish would fight for a movement that is, to put it mildly, fervently anti-Semitic?

The answer can be found in looking at logical facts through history: Jews prefer the Western Civilization way because it fixes something that they find to be broken in Jewish history. A population ends up being mixed-race only if at some point, it believed in equality, and therefore encouraged admixture between ethnic groups so long as the offspring upheld the politics, culture and ways of the host civilization.

Jews have been bouncing back from that state for thousands of years. Although the diaspora was kicked off by Roman occupation, the attraction of Europe seems more than economic. Jews are in some way trying to rediscover and recapitulate their roots, as if hoping to end the dual mentality created by a mixed-race parentage even hundreds of generations later. In this outlook, strong nationalism is appealing even if it causes conflict with Jewish identity.

For this reason, Jewish people are formalizing their relationship with nationalism despite the dual attack of Holocaust fears and guilt over the Palestinian situation. They know that if left outside of their own communities in an increasingly secularizing world, they will soon cease to exist through outbreeding; if not vigilantly, Hitlerianly nationalistic in Israel, they will be outbred and thus out-voted by Palestinians who seek to destroy them.

The kerfuffle over anti-Semitism is thus temporary for two reasons: first, strong nationalism is about to be normed across the world, which means that resentment of other groups will become normal and through that, find a saner articulation — along the lines of “we want to be with ourselves, with no types of Other among us, no matter how nice they are” — instead of the moribund practice of emotional anti-Semitism. Second, as Jewish nationalism finds a voice, it is going to drive out the suicidal Leftist threads within Judaism and their reliance on multiculturalism.

This leaves us only with another question: what to do about doxxing? The destruction of Millennial Woes’ life by UK media which insisted on revealing his name and the addresses of his family homes showed us that doxxing is a tool of the Left. Only on the Left do people believe that some ideas are so seductive that they must be banned, which is separate from normal taboos that remove “words/images as deeds” activities like child pornography and easy home nuclear bomb kit instructions.

In other words, we need to simply cease destroying people for opinions, period. If we are to purge ourselves of defectives, we should do that on the basis of their behavior, much as we might have done to Frank Collin for his apparent molestation of young children. But we will only be able to get to the bottom of any political issue by allowing it to be aired fully and frequently from all sides.

Our only successful strategy here is to make sure the stigma is removed from all beliefs. Even if we hate anti-Semitism, we must defend anti-Semites, and we must abstain from destroying Leftists no matter what crazy stuff they say, if saying it is all they have done. In this way, we open the political window to its furthest possible extreme, and with it bring the hope of finally articulating the suppressed issues of the last century.

While You Were Distracted, Your Freedom Of Speech Quietly Died

Wednesday, January 4th, 2017

The problem of law, government and ideology is that they always expand scope. This occurs because they are based on abstract principle as interpreted by individuals, each of whom has a vested interest in self-promoting, and the only way to do that is to expand power. For this reason, even the simplest rule soon broadens and greedily includes more and more, including things for which it was never designed.

We can see this in action through ethnic intimidation laws, through which your free speech has effectively just died:

A 14-year-old white student accused of making a racist video of a black student that was shared on social media will be prosecuted on charges of ethnic intimidation and harassment, a prosecutor said Tuesday.

…The student recorded a high school student eating chicken wings and, in narrating the piece, refers repeatedly to the black student with a racial slur and obscenity and describes him as “being broke and on welfare” and getting free food.

The black 16-year-old student was earlier accused of assaulting the white student in retaliation.

The original idea of ethnic intimidation laws was to prevent people from making threats to minorities and using those to nudge them out of public spaces. While even that was a terrible idea, as freedom of association is perhaps the most vital principle of an open and free society, the inevitable happened: lawyers and politicians, looking for a way to make a name for themselves, broadened the interpretation.

Now “ethnic intimidation” includes satire. This was never part of the original intent of the law.

In a fair press, not a Lügenpresse as we have now, we would be able to see the video and learn more facts about the interaction of these two people. For example, was racial language used against the white kid first? Was there a previous disagreement? But our lying press will not show us these, and instead will selectively mention certain facts that affirm its narrative, and nothing else.

This leaves us guessing, but so far, no “intimidation” occurred in the video; the videomaker may have expressed some dubious opinions, but nothing more than what is said in many American households of many races about many races. Would we have the same outrage if an Indian student filmed a white person and claimed they were gobbling casseroles to save up energy for scrapbooking and tax evasion?

Laws always expand scope. Today, making fun of a black kid is ethnic intimidation; tomorrow, mentioning any words or ideas that make someone of a minority or protected group nervous will also be ethnic intimidation. That means that expressing facts and analysis will be a felony. Your free speech just died, and no one seems to be mentioning it.

The Right To Be Corrupt

Friday, October 21st, 2016

nest_of_snakes_still_better_than_washington

Many believe that liberties are the foundation of a free and open society, but these introduce a multitude of problems that would not exist without them.

With the introduction of free speech — a civil liberty — the following problems arise:

  • Free speech indicates that without it, people would not be free to speak up. But with or without “free speech” speaking is as easy as opening your mouth. Unless you stutter, or something. Thus free speech gives the impression that you must support the liberal politicians that give you free speech, else you will be silenced.

  • With free speech, that freedom may be taken away at any moment. In fact all of your rights will be taken away, as soon as you speak against those that have something to lose from it. Then you are less than a cockroach, to them, and they will try to exterminate you.

  • As soon as there is a freedom, you live with the overhanging threat of losing it. As the people fear losing their rights, they take the necessary steps to secure them. This means that they will vote for anyone that promise them said rights and that is liberals and the left.

  • When people think that they have freedoms, they begin to behave as if they could do anything, because they use their freedoms as a free pass to validate poor behavior. This is a psychological process that is called rationalization, and that means “to lie” and make excuses. So not only do they misbehave, they also justify it, and with that the decay to their character strikes twofold.

  • The people smitten by the greatness of free speech, begin to look down upon those that do not have it, and try to spread it: they are missionaries that give everybody around them problems. In this way the West has destabilized the Middle East when it should have kept to its own business.

  • The people that have tasted the advantage of possessing freedoms, will come to demand more freedoms so that they may not just speak, or write, but soon they will have rights to behave in any way that they like. Having introduced free speech, other human rights follow and there cannot be any end to the rights that humans and animals must have to protect them from all of life.

Without free speech you may still speak, but no one may take that away from you because there is nothing to take, consequently the people cannot fear losing rights that they do not possess. This retain all the advantages of open communication, but leaves the political scheme behind, and with that the left has no political platform.

Without free speech we cannot justify saying anything with the right to speak as we please. Without free speech, the people won’t think that they are more enlightened than others in this way and so they won’t try and spread their politics and cause problems worldwide. Without rights, we need not make up ever more rights to protect everyone from everything just because these people are fearful.

The people that defend human rights are called liberals. They are not liberated though, because they have become slaves to these rights. No one need freedoms any more than the liberals do and they never have enough of it while the rest of us just go about our own business.

Recommended Reading