You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

In my previous piece at Republic Standard, I dealt extensively with hate speech laws and the broad-based ability of governments to censor any un-authorized opinions. I’d like to explicate a few more points here if I may.

I stated in my previous piece that what are becoming legal protections against criticism of Islam follow the same trajectory as those for Judaism; anti-Holocaust denial laws and their various legal similes are not merely confined to denying the Holocaust ever happened. They encompass individuals who might quibble with the exact number of Jews killed during the Holocaust, and by what means. Even stating, for example, that the absolute maximum number of Jews killed by the Nazis by June 1943, to use David Cole's research, is 2.4 million, and anything after that is an extrapolation, one is affixed with the epithet of “Holocaust Denier”—their lives subject to ruin and, if in Austria, Germany, or any of the other nations I listed previously, they may also face fines and imprisonment.

Though not as extreme in punishment, the parallels with man-made climate change are frighteningly similar. These epithets are stand-ins for having an honest debate about what, if any, role man has in climate change; the at-once loaded and meaningless phrase “climate change” itself has become a moving goal-post (remember global warming?) in much the same way as Holocaust Denial or Islamophobia, subject to ideological revision.

We are in a world now where having the right positions is of paramount importance; these encroachments on the exercise of free speech serve an ideological purpose and are central to maintaining the egalitarian fictions driving the popular narrative. People are far more susceptible to stories than data, and so in the service of said narrative, the full weight of the media, education system, and other state-run or state-sympathetic apparatuses must drum out of “respectable society” anyone who deviates from the accepted norms.

Even more distressing, a very sizeable chunk of the population is more than willing to form the lynch mob. They’ll willingly back the state super-structure while LARP-ing as The Resistance. For those familiar with Fahrenheit 451, remember it is not the government that originally calls for the burning of illicit material, i.e; books. It is the citizenry. So we are in a situation here where our basic freedoms are under attack not only from above but from all sides. Anti-Western Leftists thoroughly marinated in Cultural Marxist ideology gladly join hands with globalists, Islamists, and various identity advocacy groups in their prolonged assault on the pillars of Western civilization, each with their own end-game, but with the same common enemy: You.


When a population becomes sentimentalized, it becomes much easier to shroud totalitarianism in emotional terms. Thus, “hate speech”—the criminalization of the verbal expression of nothing more than a base emotion. The idea of “hate” hinges on the notion that the legislator or judge or whomever is appraising the speech or crime as it were can determine your motive. This is legal machinery built upon a logical fallacy, but the populace is so inured to the absence of logic that they accept the need for hate speech laws in order to protect the poor Muslims or Jews or gays or whomever. Emotion is subjective and should not, in a properly-functioning society, form the basis for any kind of law-making, let alone things as vaguely- or poorly-defined as the universe of multitudinous genders or “Islamophobia.”

Even these terms—transphobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia—are meant to paint the accused into a corner of ignorance as possessed by an irrational fear of the subject in question. It is meant to short-circuit any reasonable objections to, say, mass Islamic immigration and the wholesale changes it brings. As shocking as this may seem, there’s nothing irrational to the objection of seeing your homeland engulfed by sharia law, or dissolved in what Jim Goad calls “a cleansing wave of softly genocidal immigration.” No, defending hearth and home, kith and kin is nothing more than ignorant “nativism.” In his “The Natives Are Restless” piece published by the National Review in 1985, Joe Sobran coined the term “Alienism” as the inverse of “Nativism”; for Sobran, our discourse:


Abounds in words for the hostility of the native for the alien, the majority for the minority, the respectable for the marginal, White for black, Christian for Jew, and so forth. We have prejudice, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, nativism, xenophobia, bias, discrimination, and so forth. But these words are themselves prejudicial: They sum up, one-sidedly, a vast range of sentiment and behavior without admitting reciprocal moral realities: the hostility of Jew for Christian, black for White, marginal for respectable, minority for majority, alien for native, abnormal for normal.

The Historic American Nation, or Canadian Nation, or Spanish Nation, or Australian Nation, is under siege from within and from without, the contempt of the “alien” for the “native” rapidly evolving into official policy, the dispossession of legacy Americans, Canadians, Spanish, or Australians accelerating, while the howling doom of the barbarian throngs grows more emboldened by the day. The drum-beat of “democracy” necessitates the importation of a new people, because as Thucydides and others have noted throughout time, democracy is susceptible to demagoguery and hysteria. This is why the Founding Fathers of the United States rooted our Constitution in republicanism (though to be fair it is hybridized with democratic elements). They wanted a homogeneous, agrarian, and self-reliant society (enshrined in the Constitution and the Naturalization Act of 1790); this kind of society is virtually impossible to control. Flood the cities with aliens, however, and the natives’ minds with alien concepts, and you can transform the very fabric of that nation. As Joe Sobran wrote:

Alienism will settle for nothing less than the complete inversion of the normal perspective.

This is the position of the globalist, the sharia-enthusiast, the community activist:

“To African-Americans, George Washington has about as much meaning as David Duke” ~Carl Galmon.

Under the auspices of preventing another Holocaust, even mild criticism of Jews and Judaism has come under the umbrella of anti-Semitic legislation (unless it’s a Muslim doing it, which is quite the monkey-wrench); Holocaust denial laws are merely Shoah Shibboleths to club anyone who might not accept the orthodoxy of the age. Were gas chambers actually used? If you’re David Irving -or anyone else for that matter- this is an unaskable question. It is beyond the pale. And so is declaring Muhammad a pedophile; while historically accurate, as he wed Aisha at age six, it is now in the legally proscribed, and ever-expanding, territory of “hate speech.”


John Q. Publius

by John Q. Publius

John Q. Publius writes for Republic Standard and runs the blog The Anatomically Correct Banana.