“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
People on the Right are often affixed with the “heartless” tag by the Left, as if we are devoid of compassion and would like to see the poor starve, and the Third World sink into even more of a morass. This is actually very far from the truth, but I believe that we tend to be more pragmatic about these sorts of things. Put another way, perhaps because we have a better grasp of human nature, and because we cherish our traditions and culture and want to preserve them—hence why many on the Right refer to themselves as conservative—we aren’t all that keen on chasing windmills in the name of self-flagellating altruism. I find this quote from Lothrop Stoddard to be particularly illustrative about what, exactly, being conservative entails:
“The best sense of the word conservative [is] receptive to healthy change, yet maintaining [your] hereditary poise.”
I would like to conserve the Constitution in its original meaning; I would like to conserve the nation that was bequeathed to me by my forebears; I would like to conserve my intellectual inheritance and my freedom; and I would like to live a peaceful and quiet life without being bilked as a cash cow for the communists in the federal government or hounded to atone for sins I never committed by whom Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin) calls “racial sophists.”
I’ve previously cataloged what at first blush appears to be the paradoxical alliance of the Left and Islamic fundamentalists, which I understood to be a recent phenomenon. How fascinating, then, that I should stumble upon this passage by Lothrop Stoddard from nearly one hundred years ago:
“Here we find the most contradictory sentiments: young men whose brains are seething with radical Western ideas—atheism, socialism, Bolshevism, and what not. Yet, curiously enough, these fanatic radicals tend to join hands with the fanatic reactionaries of Islam in a common hatred of the West.”
“Considering themselves the born leaders (and exploiters) of the ignorant masses, the radicals hunger for political power and rage against that Western domination which vetoes their ambitious pretensions.”
Stoddard was speaking about the Arab world specifically in this context, but what this illustrates more than anything is that the illiberal wing of the Left and the Islamists have always been alien in nature and as such share a fundamental hatred of Western society.
A nation is not just its laws and the land it sits on; it is the people that comprise it, their unique culture, and the spirit that they embody. Our nation is the repository of the hopes, dreams, and sacrifices of our ancestors, in honor of whom we beat back the wilderness of ignorance to carry forward our inheritance. We want to preserve our traditions, true- but also we want to build upon them. To quote Joseph Sobran;
“A tradition incorporates so many implicit things that Joseph de Maistre rightly speaks of the ‘profound idiocy’ of supposing that ‘nations may be constituted with ink.’”
What our governments are doing to us is a violation of the highest order—of the compact with the past, of the spirit of our nations, and they are selling out the only homelands we have, and so help you God if you deign to criticize their project of population replacement.
The Council of Europe ratified an addendum to the Convention on Cybercrime (Treaty #189), whereby “acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems” now had the full prosecutorial force of the law.
"One critical, but often overlooked, aspect of the Convention is that many of its procedural provisions are not limited to cybercrimes. Rather, they extend to any crimes for which it is necessary to collect evidence “in electronic form.” Thus, the Convention obliges ratifying states to create laws allowing law enforcement to search and seize computers and “computer data,” engage in wiretapping, and to obtain real-time and stored communications data, whether or not the crime under investigation is a cybercrime. In many ways, then the “Convention on Cybercrime” is a misnomer—or is at least a misleadingly narrow description of the Convention’s substance." ~ Michael A. Vatis
As with any good piece of supra-national Orwellian legislation, the Convention has bestowed upon itself an impossibly broad amount of latitude. Not satisfied with this incredible power to persecute the public, the European Commission produced a statement pressuring Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other online platforms to actively suppress “hate speech,” or the Commission would take it upon themselves to produce yet more laws to tackle “illegal content.” If it is already illegal I don’t see the point, but the crux of it is to remove “hate” from the internet. We know the European Union is not above levying massive fines on tech companies for the failure to comply.
The German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in January of this year passed the Network Enforcement Act which holds social media networks and content providers responsible for whatever their users upload or post, in addition to the legal ramifications for the users themselves. In June of last year, police raided the homes of thirty-six Germans accused of “hateful postings” online. There has been a spate of additional incidents resulting in fines of Germans posting anti-Islamic memes and/or anything that can be construed as being “anti-migrant.” The German government also saw fit to prosecute Chinese tourists who sieg heil-ed in front of the Reichstag. This crack-down on “hate speech” has far more to do with enforcing the new narrative of “cultural enrichment” and preventing the hair-trigger Muslims in Germany and across the West from looting and rioting than it does anything else. The notion of hate speech laws in and of itself is an affront to the dignity of Man; government may not grant your freedoms, but is only there to secure them. When they fail in this endeavor, they lose their legitimacy.
The same day those thirty-six Germans found themselves face-to-face with the full force of the German security apparatus, fifty-year-old Nigel Pelham was arrested in the UK and charged with eight counts of posting material intended to “stir up religious hatred against Muslims.” They’re doing a fine job of that themselves, what with raping up to one million indigenous British girls, stabbing people indiscriminately, decapitating members of the British Armed Forces, and detonating nail bombs at children’s pop concerts.
The Islamization of Europe and the West does not matter to the Establishment. Instead, under the auspices of liberal democracy (which is anything but) a Scottish man under the pseudonym “Count Dankula” is being sentenced in April for making a video showing his girlfriend's pug lifting its paw in mockery of the Nazis. This is far more pressing than stopping ISIS fighters from coming into the country.
In October 2015, eighteen-year-old Iraqi “migrant” Ahmed Hassan told British immigration officials that he had been “trained to kill” by ISIS, but that he wanted to come to the UK, “to become a wildlife photographer like David Attenborough.” He was let through, and two years later he was arrested for leaving explosives on a London Underground train. Contrast this with the detaining and subsequent banning of Brittany Pettibone, Martin Sellner, and Lauren Southern, and it becomes very clear the priorities of what was once the largest empire in world history have become twisted to serve this perverse globalist agenda, and if its own people must be sacrificed, so be it. The speech codes of the United Kingdom and its kindred “liberal democracies” grow more repressive by the day.
Canada has passed M-103, the “anti-Islamophobia” motion, which infuriated Tarek Fatah, who said,
“You cannot define Islamophobia because the word is a fraud.”
Canadian, Australian and European hate speech laws have effectively become blasphemy laws.
In France, Brigitte Bardot has been fined no less than five times for “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims. Marine le Pen has also fallen foul of de-facto blasphemy laws. In June 2010, the Danish crown prosecutor sought to lift MP Jesper Langballe’s parliamentary immunity so that he could be tried for his article dealing with “Creeping Islamization” and the second-class status of women in Islam. Geert Wilders has been harassed by the Dutch authorities for his criticism of Islam. In 2010, Harry Taylor received a six-month prison sentence for placing satirical cartoons in a Muslim prayer room at Liverpool’s John Lennon Airport.
These Islamic blasphemy laws follow in the same footsteps as the Jewish ones. In Austria, not only is Holocaust denial illegal, so is “minimization” of the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is also illegal in Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Germany, Luxembourg, Italy, Romania, Russia, and Slovakia. The Gayssot Act in France criminalizes Holocaust denial. Ironically this law does not cover Armenian Genocide denial because that would violate freedom of speech. “Justifying genocide” is punishable by imprisonment in Spain, and although Holocaust denial is not expressly outlawed in the following countries, it is prosecutable under “hate speech” codes: Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Denmark. You can’t even sell Mein Kampf in the Netherlands and a slew of other countries. All genocide denial is illegal in Liechtenstein and Switzerland; the Portuguese government has some vague legalese that amounts to de facto anti-Holocaust denial laws, and in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania it is illegal to deny both Nazi and communist atrocities.
“Hate speech” laws are on the books in the following countries: Sweden, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Belgium, Australia, Chile, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, South Africa, Singapore, Norway, Russia, Serbia, Romania, Poland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Malta, Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Ireland, India, Germany, France, and Iceland. These do not encompass various explicit blasphemy laws, which are nearly universal across the Muslim world and are becoming ubiquitous in any country with appreciable numbers of Muslims.
Civility and civilization, the social contract and the philosophical underpinnings of a free society, are equally despised by the enemies of the West. A shared hatred of the West is what conjoins the Left and Islam, their coercive and collectivist ideologies at odds with the Western philosophy of individualism. They both despise the “usurious nature” of wealth creation and capitalism and abhor the notion that women aren’t helpless creatures subject to the sexual depravities of men. They impose heavy taxes on the dhimmis who refuse to convert and prevent them from carrying or possessing weapons for self-defense. Dhimmitude does not offer equal protection under the law and dis-privileges certain groups based on their belief system, race, sex, and group affiliation. They are anti-colonial but pro-mass immigration (into the West only). They are united in their totalitarianism for, to again quote Joe Sobran;
“Socialism, a system of total coercion, is incompatible in principle with civility.”
As -according to the University of Northern Iowa professors C. Kyle Rudick and Kathryn B. Golsan- civility is central to white supremacy, the entire enterprise makes a whole lot of sense.
Everything that even moderate conservatives believe is the embodiment of evil to the leftist. Everything you think is freedom is oppression. There is much talk today about Orwell's 1984, but who do you suppose is cast in the role of Big Brother by the victims wearing the hammer and sickle badges? Who does your government obey?