That Filmy Frontier

We have speculated previously that the struggle against hate has yet to open its next obvious front. Though certainly the left’s puppets are being pulled to signal its initiation. Perhaps you will recall this image from nowhere in particular:


This is what comes next. There will be things that may be said for free, and there will be said things that dearly cost thee. Your freedom to speak will stop where The Narrative begins. As any employed readers already understand, this restriction exists in de facto form already. Those who prefer feeding their children are necessarily circumspect about what comments can be publicly attributed to them. We can say whatever we like, just not while employed. It is highly effective in deterring our efforts to organize, finance, and advocate. Though plainly the left finds this sanction still too mild and is now foundation laying for construction in the criminal code. And the public appears already mentally pureed to proceed.

A YouGov poll taken just last fall found that equal amounts of Americans support and oppose “hate speech laws,” defined as laws that would “make it a crime for people to make comments that advocate genocide or hatred against an identifiable group based on such things as their race, gender, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.” Thirty-six percent said sure and 38 percent said no way. That’s disturbing enough on its own, but here’s something even more unsettling: Fully 51 percent of self-identified Democrats supported hate-speech laws.

Of course they do. Democrats understand what “hate” means. It’s opposition to the ever-metastasizing progressive platform. What a coup to transform your adversaries into criminals by the magic of legislation–or fiat as this administration might be inclined. But so long as constitutional process has been dutifully observed conservatives will voice no gripe. Morbid fidelity to a legal memoir is far more an imperative than the future of our children. Besides, are you going to support hate? Of course the term is irrelevant bozo-bait. “Cunnilingus” could serve just as ably without alteration of meaning. Call it whatever, just don’t call for white advocacy.

And at a mere 36-38 split, its orgasmic consummation is not far in ummm…coming. If you’d like to taste the current state of the art in “hate speech” hysteria–and I know you do not–this article offers quite a moistened moan. It is interminably long and hysterical in both tone and comedic effect–perhaps easily dismissible as the ravings of an unhinged leftist jew. But that would be a mistake. For history is awash with the keen laments of men who ignored the intentions of this cohort.

In documenting it, I originally began a laborious process of quote/comment, though found the essence best presented in its own unfiltered conclusions. Read through the recommendations and enjoy a good laugh. And when you are finished chuckling, pause to consider that some significant portion thereof will be law within 10 years. This is the next phase in the program: outlawing “racism” and narrowing the range of speech to a hair’s width. And as we have learned: what men do not say, they eventually do not think.

It won’t come in the next two years under this congress. But it will come. And when it does, do you imagine the Republican party or National Review will stand athwart history shouting “stop!”? No, I don’t either. So until prohibition arrives, you ladies just lie back and enjoy the ministrations. Here’s the future:

In order to establish ourselves as a country that sincerely respects fundamental human rights, democratic freedoms, and individual liberties, America needs to pass basic human rights legislation – such as a Human Rights Act – that outlaws, among other things:

1.Speech which offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, discriminates against, and/or incites hatred or violence against a person or a group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or sexual activity, gender identity or gender expression, disability, language, language ability, ideology or opinion, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and/or any other comparable distinction. In cases where hate speech is aggravated – such as incitement to genocide – prison sentences should be even longer.

2.The spreading of misinformation, including climate change denial, denial of war crimes and genocides (especially Holocaust denial) [especially that], conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine propaganda, and general nonsense [High crimes and general nonsense].

3.Anti-feminist, anti-multicultural, anti-immigration, and/or anti-equality ideology.

4.Insulting, disrespectful, and/or offensive speech in general and speech that violates the dignity of people. This would include, for example, jokes about tragedies along with insults and derogatory/disrespectful comments about any person, group, place, or thing.

5.Speech that disparages the memory of deceased persons. [No more bad mouthing certain mid 20th century Germans]

6.Speech that voices approval of oppressive, anti-freedom, anti-democratic, and/or totalitarian ideologies. This would include, for example, speech that opposes a woman’s right to have an abortion and speech that approves of Israeli apartheid in Palestine.

7.Speech that opposes any human rights. This would mean that anyone saying that hate speech shouldn’t be against the law would be prosecuted, since hate speech is universally recognized as an injustice and a human rights violation. It would also include propaganda for war, which is illegal under international human rights law.

8.Speech that incites, instructs, assists, condones, celebrates, justifies, glorifies, advocates, or threatens violence and/or law-breaking and speech that undermines the rule of law. This would include, for example, the advocacy of gun ownership (which would be classified as incitement to violence in any civilized country). In a civilized society, advocating violence is no different than actually committing the violence yourself. Only in the US is inciting violence and murder – even inciting violence and murder against minorities – considered to be “free speech”.

9.Speech that undermines the authority of the state and/or interferes with the state’s ability to properly function and do its job. This would also include speech that undermines the authority of the United Nations and/or international law.

10.Speech that objectifies women and/or reduces them to their sexual dimension, such as pornography and catcalling.

11.Speech that promotes unacceptable ideas, such as un-democratic ideologies and ideologies that oppose freedom [such as calling for hate speech laws]. This would also apply to promoting people who promote or promoted unacceptable ideas. For example, in the case of The Jewish community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ruled that glorifying Hitler not only constitutes incitement to Hatred, but also incitement to violence.

12.Speech that harms and/or divides society in general, including speech that damages social cohesion.

13.Symbols associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as Nazi swastikas and Confederate flags.

14.Gestures and salutes associated with hateful and/or un-democratic ideologies, such as fascist salutes.

15.Speech which constitutes microaggressions against vulnerable minorities.

16.Images or recordings of any crimes.

17.Speech which may lead to tensions with other nations and/or upset people in other nations.

18.Speech which is found to be blasphemous towards minority religions.

19.Depictions of indecent violence (especially violence against women) and/or other offensive content.

20.Speech which is found to be irresponsible, unethical, antisocial, hurtful, impolite, uncivil, abusive, distasteful, and/or unacceptable in general.

The SPLC will issue further guidelines shortly.


15 thoughts on “That Filmy Frontier

  1. In fairness to Jews another article by Joshua Goldberg is linked at the bottom of the page, entitled, Human Rights is Sham.

    ‘Do not be fooled by the insidious trickery of the “human rights” lobby. These people do not want to defend your rights, but to take them away and turn them into commodities to be given out by a “gracious” Big Brother government whenever convenient.’

  2. IA, that quote is accurate–or to be a bit more critically granular: “given out by whoever controls big brother government”

    Also made a few minor alterations to the post.

    Finally, commenter Jack Bolling previously mentioned having trouble reading the site on his phone. If anyone else is also, let me know your platform.

    • Although my ability to actively espouse Regressivism has recently been limited by my single-minded devotion to acquiring and spending money (who said your readers aren’t patriotic Americans?), I continue to be an avid reader, and I appreciate your taking my concerns seriously. I just checked: the mobile site is now fully readable on my iPhone. The possibility that my Job Creating betters are keeping tabs on the sites accessed through their WiFi network is a risk I’ll have to take. I can now avoid work, hate and poop all at once. Just think of the synergies!

      Sometimes I feel like I’m the only person alive who doesn’t view history as a glorious march towards Utopia. I’m more inclined to agree with Edward Abbey’s opinion that the universe is expanding to get away from us and our endless monkey drama – the lying disguised as Honesty, the cheating disguised as Integrity, the backstabbing disguised as Doing the Right Thing.

      It’s crazy to think that in 1975 when Abbey wrote the Monkey Wrench Gang – whose protagonists chop down billboards, sabotage bulldozers and blow up the Glen Canyon Dam – he was considered an extreme leftist because of his open contempt of industrial capitalism. By 1988, though, Abbey’s relationship with the left had soured because of statements like this:

      “Am I a racist? I guess I am. I certainly do not wish to live in a society dominated by blacks, or Mexicans, or Orientals. Look at Africa, at Mexico, at Asia.”

      When conservatives view you as a Communist and liberals view you as a Nazi, it means you’re probably doing something right. Anyway, I can’t think of any higher praise for your blog than the fact that I’m equally fearful of my conservative and liberal acquaintances (I don’t know any libertarians, thankfully) discovering it in my favorites list.

  3. The article advocating hate-speech law is satire (unskillful satire, I’d say, because much of it is too straight). Even so, I wouldn’t be entirely surprised if some of its mock recommendations were to become U.S. law within ten years, as you say.

      • Thanks for the link to the follow-up, which reveals her strategy. The follow-up includes this:

        “Everything in my article was based on laws that already exist in other liberal democracies.”

        “I sent my article to countless human rights activists and all of them agreed with it 100%.”

        “All of the policies that I proposed in my article are already policies in the rest of the world, particularly in liberal democracies.”

        Translation: “I’m not making this stuff up.”

  4. PS I’ll take her word that everything in her original article is based on actual law somewhere. I honestly thought this one was a complete joke:

    “17.Speech which may lead to tensions with other nations and/or upset people in other nations.”

  5. This list only seems like a complete joke because its fanatical totalitarianism would make Pol Pot blush. Hell hath no fury like a Jewess scorned. This passage seems particularly risible:

    4.Insulting, disrespectful, and/or offensive speech in general and speech that violates the dignity of people. This would include, for example, jokes about tragedies along with insults and derogatory/disrespectful comments about any person, group, place, or thing.

    Thing? So if I disrespectfully insulted any random tree or rock or mailbox or fire hydrant or speedbump I could be arrested and charged under Tanya Cohen’s Human Rights Act, Section 4? It would be pretty embarrassing explaining that to my new mates in the gulag who were in there for real crimes, like cracking midget jokes or dissing the South Bronx.

    I have no doubt that something like this will indeed become the law in the near future. But on the bright side by then our society will be so overrun with violent crime and terrorism, and the affirmative action police forces will be so thoroughly corrupt and incompetent, that we will still be able to make derogatory remarks about inanimate objects and live to tell the tale.

    • I wish. The police of the future won’t be able to keep peace in ghettos they are afraid to go into, but they will find it easy to show up at your door with a copy of the tweet where you said “Nigger”

  6. I bet a dollar that Thought Catalog article is trolling. TC has almost no editorial standards and Googling the author turns up no history of writing on the topic and a Twitter created shortly before the article went live. FWIW.

  7. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if we get a big push for “Holocaust denial” laws here in the States once they have a sufficient super-majority of obedient welfare state clients and peons thanks to non-enforcement of borders, intentionally dysgenic legal immigration policy, amnesty, and its demographic aftershocks. There’s a Mexican church not far from where I live that flies the Israeli flag out front, which suggests to me that a number of them would be sympathetic with this cause.

    “The spreading of misinformation, including climate change denial, denial of war crimes and genocides (especially Holocaust denial) [especially that], conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine propaganda, and general nonsense [High crimes and general nonsense].”

    Watch out, Hillary!

  8. 16. Images or recordings of any crimes.

    A pretty good indication that leftists are worried about the effect on the public of all the black crime videos on YouTube, World Star Hip Hop, etc.

  9. PROTOCOL No. 12

    1. The word “freedom,” which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows –

    2. Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s