Diversity Macht Frei
March 4, 2018
Love her or hate her, she’s on our side
It should come as no surprise to anyone that one of the first casualties of bringing diversity into a country and beginning to break up its millennia old homogeneous nature is freedom: The freedom of speech (how you are allowed to express yourself and what you’re allowed to say), the freedom of association (who you are allowed to associate with, if you want your establishment/neighbourhood segregated or not), the freedom of conscience (what you are allowed to believe, whether it be religious or moral beliefs) and the freedom of thought (what you are allowed to think).
It pays, however, to be vigilant and read voraciously as many news articles as possible so that should the mainstream media ignore a newsworthy event you will stumble across it in other publications. A case in point is this telling article from City Journalabout an event in Lewes, a town in the UK, where the brave patriot Katie Hopkins was invited to speak. I don’t think any of the main UK papers have given it much air time, I certainly haven’t read about it on the Telegraph or Guardian.
The author has highlighted glaring, unabashed instances of hypocrisy and there is no better mechanism for awakening, or “red pilling”, normal every day white people than confronting them with these every day egregious double standards. Whites have an inherent sense of fair play, they believe all should be treated equally (this of course is the root of our current problems, since some people who lack abstract thought and hence integrity and a sense of justice rather than grievance do not deserve the same rights and privileges as whites) and anything which violates this principle triggers something in their minds that wakes them up to other methods of silent dispossession. The writer, a Theodore Dalrymple, touches on the most common double standard in modern British life
Perhaps her most notorious utterance was a tweet in the immediate aftermath of the May 2017 Manchester bombing in which 23 people, including the bomber, were killed: “22 dead—number rising. . . . We need a final solution.” Immediately afterward, she was dismissed from one of her jobs as a commentator on a London radio station.
In a subsequent interview, she admitted that a lasting solution might have been a better way of putting it… Further, she said later, the hostility expressed toward her was much greater than had been that toward the Labour Party’s Friends of Palestine Group when it had tweeted, “Two state solution with END to occupation—our solution will be the final solution.” As nearly a third of Labour’s members of Parliament belong to that group, including the party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and as Corbyn and the party may well form the next government, this locution was far more worrying when used by the group than when used by a lone journalist, however famous or notorious.
Sadly, while he dangerously (for a modern writer hoping for a fruitful public career) skirts around “groups of people” he doesn’t touch on the roots of the main (((group))) responsible; it is not a question of integrity or bravery, he would be foolish to have named the Jew:
So Hopkins is widely regarded as a purveyor of hate speech—utterance that is to be answered by prohibition, rather than by argument. The category of hate speech is disturbingly expandable and depends on the propensity of groups of people to take offense or feel threatened (where it pays to be offended, people will take offense). Certain groups, but not others, are accorded legal or social protection from unpleasant name-calling, as if they were endangered species.
If they can’t bar you from expressing yourself through legal means they will resort to extortion and thinly veiled threats; while the council in question voted almost unanimously to speak, a dissenter warned of consequences:
Considerable efforts were made to bar Hopkins from speaking at the event. When I arrived in Lewes, posters in many windows proclaimed that Lewes wanted no hate speech. A town councillor had argued that the invitation to Hopkins should be withdrawn… [he] argued that the demonstration against Hopkins would be so violent that her appearance would constitute a threat to health, safety, and public order. On legal advice, however, that this argument was blatantly political, the council, with not a single Conservative member despite the town’s evident prosperity, voted overwhelmingly for the invitation to stand.
It turned out that the councillor who had argued for the withdrawal of the invitation was sympathetic to the demonstration against Hopkins, so that in essence his argument had been almost a threat: if you do not do as I say, like-minded people will react violently, and since you have been warned, such violence will be your fault. Do as I say, or else: the new democratic principle.
Ironically, such blatant anti-democratic measures to bar speakers would have sparked outrage, editorials and mass protests from intelligentsia with any credibility just 80 years ago but today the establishment is either silent or on the side of jackbooted brutes.
The article is long but well worth reading; I can’t touch on every point. I would, however, like to end this post with a comment on the reaction of the police to the clearly illegal activity that occurred:
The police made no arrests, despite having been assaulted themselves and witnessed others being assaulted, despite the fact that a building was illegally broken into, despite the fact that 40 people had been falsely imprisoned, despite the fact that threatening language (of a degree likely to make any reasonably firm-minded person afraid for his safety) had been used repeatedly. They failed to protect citizens who were going about their lawful business. To say that they were useless would be an exaggeration: goodness knows what would have happened had they not been there. But they did not carry out their duty with alacrity, and the social media—videos, sound recordings, photographs—that helped to call the mob into being in the first place are now being used to hold the police to account for their passivity in enforcing the law.
The media and psychologists like to portray right leaning people as authoritarian and hence folk who slavishly support the police no matter what they do. This couldn’t be further from the truth; the fact of the matter is, these days police forces in much of the West are more like a civil army for the elite designed to enforce their rules no matter how inane or how unjust. Simply by virtue of something being enshrined in law does not make it just, it does not make it right.
If and when things get really bad, one would have to be blind or delusional to think the police would ever take our side, the side of the indigenous patriots protesting their dispossession. They will pepper spray us with impunity, they will use water cannon on us, batons, K-9 units. They care more about their pensions than principles. Already they are arresting our people and extorting large sums for having committed no real crime with no real victim:
And of course the UK, perhaps the worst offender and now the laughingstock of the civilised world: