freedom of speech issues


According to the prank cooperative “Improveverywhere,”:

The No Pants Subway Ride is an annual event staged by Improv Everywhere every January in New York City. The mission started as a small prank with seven guys and has grown into an international celebration of silliness, with dozens of cities around the world participating each year. The idea behind No Pants is simple: Random passengers board a subway car at separate stops in the middle of winter without pants. The participants do not behave as if they know each other, and they all wear winter coats, hats, scarves, and gloves. The only unusual thing is their lack of pants.

The article goes on to applaud the increase in diversity over the years:

We dropped the “pants seller” bit this year after too many people lost their pants in 2006. Instead, participants hid their pants in a backpack. This was the first year No Pants really started becoming diverse, with people of all colors, shapes, sizes, and ages participating.

You see, up until then this organized silliness was almost exclusively a white thing. I don’t think this has changed much. A look at international participation tends to confirm our already established notions about race, ethnicity and religion. No Pants participants were arrested in Istanbul. The stunt is quite popular in the Far East – but unknown in black Africa. Here’s a list of participating cities as of this year:

- Adelaide
Amsterdam
Atlanta
Austin
Bangalore
Barcelona
Basel
Beijing
Berlin
Boston
Brisbane
Brussels
Budapest
Buenos Aires
Cairo
Calgary
Cape Town
Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Copenhagen
Dallas
Delhi
Hamburg
Hong Kong
Jerusalem
Johannesburg
Kyiv
Lille
Lisbon
London
Los Angeles
Madrid
Melbourne
Mexico City
Miami
Milan
Minneapolis
Montreal
Munich
Nantucket
Naples (Italy)
New Orleans
New York
Paris
Philadephia
Phoenix
Portland
Prague
Salt Lake City
San Francisco
Seattle
Sofia
St. Louis
Stockholm
Stuttgart
Sydney
Toronto
Vancouver
Vienna
Warsaw
Washington DC

A glance at the photos from Cape Town reveals that almost all the participants were white. Johannesburg shows a handful of blacks.

The freedom to be silly in public is a hallmark of civilized society. If we were to rate societies by their participation in No Pants Day, whites definitely come out on top. Asian participation seems to be anemic, probably partly due to fear of police intervention and partly due to the intense cold of Northeast Asia this time of year (though this hasn’t stopped New York participants). While blacks will participate as individuals, not very many blacks (even in majority black cities such as Atlanta, Philadelphia or St. Louis) seem to have participated. It probably wouldn’t be very smart to perform a stunt like this in the ghetto, and we’re not likely to see significant participation in places like Monrovia, Liberia or Brazzaville, Congo – even though the climate in those places is perfect.

I was thinking about suggesting that the upcoming American Renaissance conference be a No Pants event (we could still wear our ties). That way, nobody could dispute our superiority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Two recent incidents illustrate how the enemies of liberty on the left work to deny us our freedom of speech. In the first incident, a woman was fired from her (presumably private sector) job due to leftist/black activism against an “offensive” online photo she had posted. According to blackamericaweb.com:

To the mom who thought  it was cool for her kids to dress up like Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman for Halloween, we’re glad karma has come to bite you in the butt.

According to reports, Caitlin Cimeno has been fired from her job for posting racially-insensitive photos of her sons, William Filene and Greg Cimeno, with the caption: “Happy Halloween from Zimmerman & trayvon (insert smiley face emoji here.)”

The Massachusetts woman failed to realize that you can be easily tracked down if you post your full name, photos of your children at school, shots of your car with the license plate and selfies at work (duh!). After one Instagram user wrote, “You ruined your life by posting those pics,” Caitlin quickly changed her profile name and deleted the racist shots. But sadly for her, it was too late.

Since I believe that discrimination should be legal in the private sector, her employer (if private) had the right to hire her, or fire her, for any reason he saw fit. Of course, those who oppose employment discrimination based on, among other things, political affiliation, should have a problem with this. Of course, while they have no problem with whites being persecuted for perceived insensitivity toward their favorite groups, they would have serious problems with somebody getting fired for showing insensitivity toward whites or men or straight people.

But given the rapid expansion of government, and taxes, into our lives, the lines between “private sector” and “public sector” are getting blurred. When private sector jobs are getting harder and harder to find, while government jobs sometimes remain the only option for many people, it becomes less and less justifiable to deny “public sector” employees their freedom of speech.

In the second incident, a public security guard is under attack for posting pro-Hitler photos, and disparaging comments about blacks and Jews on social media. In this CBS video, we see reporters hounding the security guard for getting paid with taxpayer money even as he violates social taboos online. Though I think the security guard showed poor taste and a lack of discretion by posting those images, in all likelihood, this was just his way of rebelling against an increasingly oppressive regime of political correctness. Perhaps he’d been forced to attend too many “diversity training” seminars and this was simply his way of venting, of defiling the gods of his oppressors and pissing on their alters. As a security guard, he’s probably very much aware of the black propensity for violence, and the liberal Jewish propensity for silencing those who would speak of it.

The actions of CBS, and black/leftist activists, are calculated to make it a de facto crime to violate the dictates of political correctness. On the one hand, they support an ever-expanding government. On the other, they deny those who work for said government the right to express themselves as they see fit. In their “perfect world” everybody would work for the government to one extent or another – and we’d all be subject to politically correct speech codes. After all, we’re “being paid with taxpayer dollars.”

On a positive note, this is a good opportunity to use the freedom of speech we do have left, and to draw attention to an online force we can use to our advantage: truthrevolt.org. I especially want to encourage y’all to sign this petition:

Tell Advertisers to Stop Backing Al Sharpton

Thanks to Portland Realist for bringing my attention to an article in the Portland Tribune that masquerades as “news” when, in fact, it’s propaganda. When the corporate-controlled media accepts dogma as truth, it is bound to confuse the boundaries between “news” and “editorial.” At the very beginning of the article, accompanying a provocative photo, we read:

Defining hate speech may be more difficult than passing a law restricting it, yet most western democracies outside the U.S. have attempted to do both.

The unspoken, and underlying, assumption here is that there is a need to make a distinction between free speech and hate speech. In a bona fide news piece, the writer would present the case for making such a distinction (and for not making it), and then go about explaining how it might be done. But since no such argument is made (at least not at the beginning of the article), but rather it’s assumed, this falls into the realm of propaganda. In every country where hate speech laws are in effect, they are selectively enforced to the detriment of whites, males, Christians and heterosexuals. Rarely are they enforced against non-whites who speak hatefully against whites, or against Muslims who speak hatefully against Christians. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” It is evident that hate speech laws are merely tools of oppression to be used against select groups.

Korn treats us with yet more assumptions in the second paragraph of his article.

Blevins is TriMet’s director of marketing, the guy who deals with the ads. During the past two months, he has accepted – because TriMet attorneys said he had to – two controversial ads that Blevins recognizes aren’t hate speech but are moving in that direction.

One ad asked for public support for Israel and the defeat of jihad and “savages.” The other, which was pro-Palestinian, headlined “Palestinian Loss of Land.”

Why are they “moving in that direction” and who gets to determine when they cross the line into “hate speech”? It would appear that the first ad is objectionable because it attacks jihad and “savages”. If jihad is a call for war against infidels – and the Quran requires it – then wouldn’t the Quran be “hate speech”? How can objecting to a call for war be “hate speech”? Was it “hate speech” when people protested against the Vietnam war or the war on Iraq? Furthermore, is it not accurate to describe people who commit “honor killings” and acid attacks as “savages”? If the problem is the implication that all Muslims are savages, because they believe in jihad, then we should be asking ourselves honest questions about Islam and the definition of “savage.”

Here’s a proposal. Make it a requirement that anybody who wishes to reside in the U.S. must swear, and sign, that he disavows any sort of violent jihad. He would have to explicitly repudiate all passages, in the Quran and the Hadeeth, that call for war against infidels. If such a proposal were seriously suggested, there would be an outcry from the Muslim community. Of course, some would lie to gain residency, but it would keep some of the worst elements out.

I have more difficulty understanding why the pro-Palestinian ad is problematic. Had the ad decried the theft of land from native Americans, would it still be considered problematic? Apparently Korn (Jewish?) believes that a pro-Palestinian positions must be anti-Israel, and that anti-Israel = anti-Semitic.

Korn goes on…

In August, Ellis Bradley discovered that somebody overnight had spray-painted swastikas and racial slurs on his North Mississippi Avenue food cart and on the Sons of Haiti Masonic Lodge next door.

If Bradley’s food cart or the Masonic Temple had been in Canada, France, Germany or just about any other western democracy, the people who spray-painted their messages, if caught, might face punishments much harsher than they could get for mere vandalism.

Does Korn really think that the culprit, if caught, would not face charges of ethnic intimidation or worse? When a white person calls a black a nigger, he practically loses his rights in the eyes of the law. But, as mentioned, blacks can call whites “white boy”, “cracker” or “racist” with impunity.  Hate speech laws are ridiculously biased against whites in Canada, France and Germany. If Korn wants the U.S. to be like those countries, it must be because he shares their anti-white, anti-Christian, bias.

Not surprisingly, Bradly (who is black) favors the implementation of hate speech laws:

Bradley, a 41-year-old black man who grew up in Northeast Portland but lives in Vancouver, Wash., says he would favor a law against hate speech.

“I wish there was a law so when you do something like that, especially when I have my child with me, there would be some kind of sanction, someone I can call and say, ‘Hey, look, this is wrong.’ “

It’s obvious from the article that Korn also favors hate speech laws. I wonder if Korn and Bradley would support locking up rap artists for their hateful lyrics. Would they hold Islamic writings to the same standards as Christian preachers who condemn homosexuality from the pulpit? The Bible contains “hate speech” as well. Would Christianity and Judaism then be illegal? I don’t expect the average citizen, especially blacks ones, to comprehend the importance of freedom of speech. But a journalist, of all people, should know better.

The article is a fairly long one, and Korn makes it abundantly clear that hate speech laws are not intended to protect whites. He writes, for example:

Waldron would try to narrowly define hate speech in any legislation. Words that offend would not be enough, he says. They would have to attack fundamental dignity. And they couldn’t be simply hateful on a personal level, but would have to attack the dignity of an entire class of people such as blacks or gays.

“Such as” here clearly means “exclusive of whites or heterosexuals”. I would say “majority groups” – except that whites are a minority in many places, yet they are never given minority status. Neither Detroit nor South Africa recognizes whites as a protected minority. There are countless examples of anti-white speech, many of them from the pages of the Portland Tribune, that Korn could have cited. Yet he saw fit to ignore them completely and focus exclusively on white on non-white offenses.

To be sure, Korn does present the case against hate speech laws in his article – but only toward the end of the article, where most readers do not venture. As in the beginning of the article, the end also supports the enactment of hate speech laws:

Clackamas County attorney Ed Trompke, who is writing a book about the Oregon Constitution and characterizes himself as extremely liberal, says he’s coming around to the idea that maybe we should at attempt to address hate speech.

Trompke suggests legislation that would make public hate speech a low-level offense, like a traffic ticket. It could be a violation, Trompke says, not a criminal charge, but enough to let offenders know society doesn’t approve.

“There’s a very fine line between what is merely offensive and what is so offensive as to attack a person’s dignity as a human being,” Trompke says. “But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. We have to trust our judges to do the right thing. That’s what it comes down to.”…

The Portland Tribune is preparing the groundwork for the abolition of the First Amendment. It’s warming the public to the idea that hate speech legislation is a progressive idea whose time has come. Look for referenda in the near future to outlaw such speech. When they ultimately pass, bolstered by black, Hispanic and Asian voters, who will have the wherewithal to challenge them in court? Making them a “low-level offense” is a sneaky way to discourage people from challenging such laws in court. Stocking the courts with hyphenated Americans will assure that even if such cases make it to court, those laws will be found “constitutional.” At that point, the only means left to us to defend the First Amendment will be to exercise the Second Amendment.

Fortunately, you can say almost anything in a blog. The challenge is in speaking the truth, speaking it well and in getting people to read it. But public figures  face dire consequences for breaking the rules of political correctness. Syndicated columnists, talk-show hosts and politicians will lose their jobs – after being made to grovel and to publicly humiliate themselves.

But one public figure:

… recounts various recent instances of black racist crime, which have been the subjects of articles on this blogsite as well as others not covered here, including serious incidents at Skidmore College, in Denver, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and on Chicago’s beaches.  All involved black gangs committing patently-obvious racist hate crimes against both whites and Asians, although the more punitive hate crime charge is rarely applied by either the police or by the media to the miscreants. In a scathing and verified indictment of the MSM, (he) audaciously and perspicaciously writes, “In many of these brutal attacks, the news media make no mention of the race of the perpetrators.  If it were white racist gangs randomly attacking blacks, the mainstream media would have no hesitation reporting the race of the perps.”

It’s hard to believe that the above refers to anything but a pro-white blogger. But it’s actually referring to economist Walter Williams, pictured below.

Williams also recounts the following, in a recent column:

During a reception, one of the Marxist professors asked me what I thought about the relationship between capitalism and slavery. My response was that slavery has existed everywhere in the world, under every political and economic system, and was by no means unique to capitalism or the United States. Perturbed by my response, he asked me what my feelings were about the enslavement of my ancestors. I answered that slavery is a despicable violation of human rights but that the enslavement of my ancestors is history, and one of the immutable facts of history is that nothing can be done to change it.

The matter could have been left there, but I volunteered that today’s American blacks have benefited enormously from the horrible suffering of our ancestors. Why? I said the standard of living and personal liberty of black Americans are better than what blacks living anywhere in Africa have. I then asked the professor what it was that explained how tens of millions of blacks came to be born in the U.S. instead of Africa. He wouldn’t answer, but an answer other than slavery would have been sheer idiocy. I attempted to assuage the professor’s and his colleagues’ shock by explaining to them that to morally condemn a practice such as slavery does not require one to also deny its effects.

Neither point is an original one for readers of this blog, or any other pro-white blog. We’ve been declaring these truths over and over again for years. But there is zero chance of any pro-white blogger being allowed to voice his opinions on national T.V. No major newspaper will print our columns. Our opinions will not grace the pages of Newsweek or USA Today. But regarding Walter Williams, Wikipedia says:

His syndicated column is published weekly in approximately 140 newspapers across the United States, as well as on several web sites by Creators Syndicate. He also wrote and hosted documentaries for PBS in 1985. The “Good Intentions” documentary was based on his book The State Against Blacks.

I’m happy for him; I’m glad that he is able to advance positions that I happen to agree with. But the fact remains that, had he been white, it’s doubtful he would be allowed to say half the things he says without being forced into ignominy and poverty. Though he takes a lot of heat for his opinions, he’s still allowed to state them without dire repercussions. For better or for worse, Williams can say what whites, in similar positions, cannot say. I’m certain that he would be the first to agree.

I just visited Eugene, Oregon and couldn’t help but notice prominently displayed signs such as these:

From what I’ve seen of Eugene, it’s an ultra-liberal, almost entirely white, college town. Any “hate crimes” against non-whites must be few and far between. The City of Eugene website has a presentation about hate crimes in which only four incidents, non of them violent (all involved graffiti), are listed since 2008. That’s a pretty good track record, even if we assume that all of them were legitimate.

There’s no way of knowing how many anti-white incidents occurred during the same time period since nobody keeps track of those. The above-mentioned presentation lists resources and organizations for fighting hate crimes. Tellingly, none of them look after the interests of white people; their goal is to protect non-whites and sexual minorities. Of course, the governmental institutions listed are well-known for turning a blind eye to anti-white hate crimes.

Here’s an interesting page from the presentation:

I’m sure it will come as news to many of y’all that a non-criminal activity can be a “crime”. Evidently, “hate speech” is already considered a quasi-crime by the municipality of Eugene. “Hate speech” is any speech that is critical of non-whites, or views whites in a positive light. It is also any speech that challenges orthodox views on race. I’m guessing that some will disagree with me on this. So I’m tempted to pass out some flyers in Eugene to prove my point.

Between 80,000 and 90,000 new werewolves have arrived annually to the U.S. each year recently and their numbers are projected to continue growing. Clearly the werewolves find the U.S. (and Europe) attractive places to live – or they wouldn’t continue to stream in.

In their native countries, werewolves have established provisions to block the effects of the full moon. Unfortunately, in the U.S. and Europe such provisions do not exist. Therefore the werewolves of Kansas City have called for a ban on the full moon. According to Fox News:

“We understand that the United States Constitution allows for the moon to appear in all its cycles, to wax and wane and even to be full , but when the allowance of the full moon incites violence it should be banned,” read a statement from the Werewolf Society.

While condemning the violence that was originally blamed on the full moon, the Werewolf group said it would “be in everyone’s interest to ban the moon from appearing in its full form.”

“We condemn the violence and feel that, in spite of the U. S. Constitution, action may be necessary to pass such a bill or, at least, censure such actions in order to calm the current situation as well as prevent future re-occurrences,” the statement read.

The Werewolf Society in Kansas City is not alone in their calls for limiting the appearance of the full moon.

“We, as Americans, have to put limits and borders [on] the moon,” the head werewolf told The Blaze.

There have been several recent instances where werewolves have gone on the rampage, randomly tearing out peoples’ hearts and engaging in other such mayhem. Each occurrence has been linked to the full moon.

There are no plans to limit the immigration of werewolves to the U.S. and Europe; their numbers are already large enough that such a move would be politically impractical. Furthermore, werewolves are on the endangered species list and any action against them could be prosecuted as a Federal crime.

I just wasted about 14 minutes of my life watching “Innocence of Muslims“. I can’t believe somebody actually spent money making such garbage. It’s even more incomprehensible to me that millions of Muslims worldwide are rioting because of it. Normal people would laugh at such a movie, not go on a rampage and murder innocents.

There are millions of lousy movies on YouTube and we think little of it. But we should pay close attention to the Muslim reaction. It should serve as a warning that “blasphemy” will be punishable by death anywhere large numbers of Muslims settle. This punishment might be de jure or de facto, but either way freedom of speech will become a thing of the past. Some Western countries already have anti-blasphemy laws on the books. Instead of calling it “blasphemy”, they call it “hate-speech” or “ethnic incitement”.

If we are to guarantee the long-term survival of freedom of speech in our societies, then we must carefully limit the number of Muslims we allow into them. Freedom of religion is not, in the long run, compatible with freedom of speech. Some people try to get around this contradiction in the Constitution by defining Islam not as a religion, but as a political system.

Is Catholicism a political system? For centuries the Catholic Church stifled freedom of expression, tortured and executed people for heretical views and persecuted non-believers. Jews would also be guilty of similar crimes if we had the power. I don’t believe in the distinction between a religion and a political system. If you take your religion seriously, it’s also a political system. If you don’t, then you are only nominally religious – at least when it comes to “religions of the book”, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Of course, most Muslims haven’t taken to the streets. The vast majority of them, no doubt, have carried on with their daily lives. But the fact remains that wherever there are large numbers of Muslims, there will be an element of fanaticism that raises its ugly head at the drop of a hat. There is no way to distinguish between “normal Muslims” and “fanatical Muslims” at the border. There is no known way to ensure that immigrant Muslims, and their children, will refrain from going berserk every time they encounter “blasphemy”. As a matter of fact, the younger generation of Muslims, in Western countries, often turns out to be more violent than their immigrant parents.

Western nations, pay attention and take heed!

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 143 other followers