When Words Don’t Matter Fists Will

From Communism’s ‘Enemy of the People’ to PC’s ‘Hate Criminal’ – American Renaissance

Original: www.amren.com

Editor’s introduction: Frank Ellis served in the British special forces and is a former lecturer in Russian and Slavonic studies at the University of Leeds in England. He was a speaker at the 2000 American Renaissance conference, and he is the author of a remarkable study of the Eastern Front during the Second World War called The Damned and the Dead. In light of recent events in Christchurch, New Zealand, he writes the following:

In 2004 I gave a lecture in Christchurch at the invitation of the Maxim Institute. The title was “From Communism’s ‘Enemy of the People’ to PC’s ‘Hate Criminal’.” This is an excerpt from my lecture, which was later published. I clearly anticipated what happened in Christchurch 15 years later.

Before turning to some of the legal developments that are starting to have an impact, we ought to examine the language of hate which, I would argue, should be subsumed under the general rubric of rejection, hate being the most extreme form. One question that the advocates of criminalising various words, jokes and attitudes never seem to consider is why such words and attitudes arise in the first place. Human language is capable of expressing a wide spectrum of rejection from silence, sarcasm, mild derision, contempt to even, on occasions, hatred. One possible reason lies in the flexibility permitted by various responses.

Consider two states. State A possesses modern armed forces, from a well trained professional army with expertise in everything from peace-making to conventional military operations and counter-insurgency to a professional navy and air force. To these conventional forces can be added a nuclear, biological and chemical defence capability and tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.  State B has no army, no air force or navy, but it does have a strategic nuclear arsenal. Now, state A by virtue of its having a full range of modern weapons and services, is in a position to react in a flexible manner to many different threats to national security – from minor border incidents to nuclear attack. As the sequence of a conflict starts to escalate, as measured by the military assets deployed, so the conflict moves up the diplomatic agenda.

The Cuban Missile crisis is a good example. State B whose leaders only dispose of a strategic nuclear arsenal enjoys no such flexibility. It has unilaterally withdrawn from the sphere of conventional weapons and forces and thus is powerless, paradoxically, to react even to border violations or to defend itself against conventional attack. It has only two responses to all contingencies: to unleash nuclear war or to do nothing.

Now let us return to the question of hate crime legislation which seeks to criminalise the entire spectrum of rejection words and ideas. One function of moderate rejection words is to warn others of our disapproval at an early stage. That is not to argue that because I have earlier signalled my disapproval in fairly moderate language that the dispute will never escalate to even harsher words and an exchange of blows. However, that outcome can at least, in theory, be avoided. If I am denied the option of using even moderately critical words, because they are now deemed to be racist or hate speech, then I have been verbally disarmed. I cannot signal my disapproval, my rejection of certain types of behaviour or attitudes (spitting in public places, arranged marriages, female circumcision, for example). I either disengage from my interlocutor, which may not be possible, or denied a non-violent communicative response, and frustrated, I escalate to a violent response: I assault him, my nuclear option, which is an emphatic rejection.

The criminalising of words, ideas, attitudes and jokes as racist or hate speech removes the option of graded responses, thereby increasing resentments and making things worse. Even Bhikhu Parekh, a leading guru of multiculturalism, recognises the dangers, which in the light of his attempts to limit free speech – it has, he tells us, no privileged status – is either grossly inconsistent or Machiavellian. He warns us: ‘ First, a contentious issue can be resolved relatively easily or at least prevented from getting out of control if it is identified, isolated and dealt with at an early stage.’ How true. And it is not happening. Hate crime legislation promotes self-censorship, the worst kind of censorship. Again, there are some obvious parallels with the later stages of communism.

From the state’s point of view this is a desirable outcome since one does not need to be heavy handed. Every citizen becomes his own censor. At an individual level the loss of being able to express oneself is bad enough, but what happens when a whole society cannot express itself for fear of incurring accusations of racism and hate crime? Does this really promote better race relations, understanding and good will? On the contrary, it promotes mutual suspicion and resentment which under certain circumstances can erupt into something very nasty indeed, as the disintegration of Yugoslavia showed. Fifty years of compelling people to act and to believe as if Yugoslavia was a model of multiethnic harmony was blown to pieces in the 1990s when resentments and festering hatreds suppressed by the communists erupted in an orgy of genocide. Legislators in the West who think that the West will always be immune from such violence overestimate the extent to which human behaviour can be manipulated by ill-conceived laws. People do not become favourably disposed to one another because of hate crime legislation. Public displays of tolerance are not enough to hold a multicultural society together.

Without that essential feeling that the “other” belongs in my tribe, the “other” will always be an outsider. The more governments coerce public opinion, the bigger will be the divide between the private and public spheres. The more I am told that I must accept the “other”, the more I will come to resent and, eventually, to reject him. Denied the option of expressing my rejection of multiculturalism in public, I can give free rein only within the four walls of my own home. And what happens when eventually the barriers come down, as they must, between what I really think and feel, and between what I am expected to say in public? The obedient arrows of my hatred, lovingly made and crafted, will do my bidding.

The Child of Marxist Doctrine

  • political correctness is a child of the Marxist doctrine that spread during the radical ’60s. Its enforcers now control the public schools, most academic institutions, the Democrat Party, as well as the Republican establishment. They no longer have to throw Molotov cocktails; now they set the rules.
  • their beliefs
    • 1 – All human problems are material in nature,
    • 2 – Human beings are only one more species of animal that has evolved on this planet without intelligent design,
    • 3 – The environment determines human behavior, as it does that of every other animal,
    • 4 – The purpose of government is to control the social, economic, political and natural environment to produce correct human behaviors,
    • 5 – Anyone who rejects these propositions deserves to be treated as an enemy of human beings.
  • The last point is probably the best-known facet of political correctness: People who disagree deserve to be silenced or eliminated, by whatever means. And whatever means is not an exaggeration.
  • In order to remodel the world, these Marxists continuously reshape language “to control perceptions, and thus behavior.” This manipulation has gone a long way, and speech that was considered uncontroversial 30 years ago is now improper, if not criminal. Terms such as “discrimination” and “Negro” have negative connotations, while new words such as “ableism,” “deadnaming,” “hate speech,” and “sizeism” have appeared further to restrict what can or cannot be said. At the same time, euphemisms promote acceptance of the inversion of normal values. For example, “illegal aliens” were first “undocumented immigrants” before being replaced by “immigrants,” then “migrant” and now “entrants.”
  • The resulting feminization of America is producing a generation of “snowflakes” who cannot bear the simplest criticism.
  • University of California President Janet Napolitano made a list of offensive sentences, such as “America is the land of opportunity;” “I believe the most qualified person should get the job;” “When I look at you, I don’t see color;” and even the silly motto “There is only one race, the human race.” All of these statements are now “microaggressions” that “victimize” minorities.
  • Every white man is the literal moral equivalent of a “slave owner on a nineteenth-century plantation, or a sex trafficker, or a would-be assassin of homosexuals.” The rest of humanity, including women, are perpetually oppressed minorities “victimized by straight white males.” A homeless white man is the heir of white privilege, while a black millionaire is oppressed.
  • At the same time, the liberal vision of immigrants assimilating to American culture has been replaced by the doctrine of multiculturalism
  • This ideology holds that all cultures are equally good and must develop independently on American soil, thus supplanting any host or mainstream culture.
  • The historic America founded on individual liberty is now a patchwork of groups that claim their own “entitlements” to counterbalance “historic inequities.” As the author notes, “Nowadays ethnicity, race, gender, and ‘sexual orientation’ define class consciousness in America.” Individuals fall into prescribed categories, willingly or not, knowingly or not.
  • The concept of equality has been upended. As President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed: “We seek not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.” All different groups must enjoy equal success, which is impossible
  • Prof. McElroy has written a book that could be a good first step in the education of a baffled former liberal.

Adam & Eve Protect The Garden

Source: http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=61564


Powerful video out of St Louis, Missouri shows a husband and wife facing down an angry mob of protesters who trespassed into their privately-owned suburb.



After the out-of-context videos above went viral and lies spread claiming the two were threatening “peaceful protesters” on a public street, a longer clip surfaced showing the mob chose to leave the public street they were marching on to invade their private property.




“Both the gate and the driveway are clearly identified as private property,” The Conservative Tree House reported. “This is not public property.”



Though the couple were doxed and inundated with threats on Twitter, the two quickly became a meme of resistance.











UPDATE: The home the couple was seen defending is a Midwestern palazzo they bought in a dilapidated state in 1988 and spent 32 years restoring to its original glory, according to a report from St. Louis Magazine in 2018.



UPDATE II:


From STL Today:
Police are continuing the investigate the incident on Portland Place but are labeling it as a case of trespassing and fourth-degree assault by intimidation.

Meanwhile, were the couple, as they stood on their own property, within their rights to point weapons at protesters? Gun rights advocates say yes. A police spokesperson said to ask “the courts.”

Anders Walker, a constitutional law professor at St. Louis University, said that although it’s “very dangerous” to engage protesters with guns, the homeowners broke no laws by brandishing or pointing weapons at them because Portland Place is a private street. He said the McCloskeys are protected by Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which allows people to use deadly force to defend private property.

“At any point that you enter the property, they can then, in Missouri, use deadly force to get you off the lawn,” Walker said, calling the state’s Castle Doctrine a “force field” that “indemnifies you, and you can even pull the trigger in Missouri.”
KSDK released an interview with the homeowner:



Their lawyer put out this weak statement on their behalf (Mark’s interview above is a lot better):



You can see the rioters smashed down their gate:


St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner released this threatening statement on Monday afternoon:


Gardner is one of the many state’s attorneys who have taken funding from George Soros.

Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook, Gab and Minds.


undefined Facebook Twitter Reddit Email


The Best of My Brain

%d bloggers like this: