- Christogenea Saturdays
In the Wake of Charlottesville, with Mike Delaney of Prothink.org.
In 1789 a group of White and predominantly Christian men of general Northern European extraction left a Constitutional Republic which they themselves had asserted was for “us and our posterity”, according to their own words. This was a concrete position which constituted the very fabric of the fledgling Republic.
In 1866 Congress and the courts began to erode the Republic by ignoring the fact that it was formed exclusively for the posterity of the founders, which is their offspring. This was a political situation, and not everyone appreciated the circumstances. It had opposition then, and it has opposition now. In fact, nine States refused to ratify the 14th Amendment in 1866 and 1867, and State Legislatures in Oregon, Ohio and New Jersey rescinded their initial ratification votes in 1868, so it was far from being universally popular. Likewise, seven States refused to ratify the 15th Amendment in 1869 and 1870. So the passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments was the result of political circumstances. These Amendments do not represent concrete moral truths, but rather they represent the outcome of political circumstances which for one reason or another had led to the prevalence of certain opinions at that particular time, and in spite of the fact that they are contrary to the original Constitution. Political opinions and circumstances are fluid, people cannot be forced to agree with them, and they can change or be changed by the will of the people.
Immigration and the preservation of the original culture of the Christian European founders of this Republic have been political debates ever since the 19th century. But they have never before been characterized as “hate”. The issue of non-White immigration was debated heavily in the 1920’s, and it was never characterized as “hate”. At that time, there was an immigration law which created quotas based on the demographics of the nation as they were recorded in 1890 that had already passed as law in 1921, and which was renewed in 1922. After continued debate, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, which was also known as the Johnson-Reed Act. This act retained the ethnic quota system, which was never even questioned when the act was debated, and it completely excluded immigration from Asia, and limited annual immigration to 2% of those nationalities of which the Republic was already comprised. In addition, there was a literacy test which was administered to prospective immigrants, and failure meant that one would be barred from entering the country. According to an article on the United States Department of State website, “In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity.”
None of these politicians from the 1920’s who sought to maintain the ethnic homogeneity of the United States so as to preserve their own culture were ever called “haters” by their contemporaries. It is not “hate” to exclude people of alien cultures in the desire to preserve one’s own culture. But neither did these politicians who prevailed in 1924 seek to outlaw contrary opinions. So the act was revised by Congress in 1952, but then the much more liberal opinions of the 1960’s changed immigration trends entirely. However what happened in the 1960’s was also due to political circumstances. The prevailing views on immigration are not concrete moral values. They are opinions which can change or be changed by other circumstances or conflicting experiences. [See the article The Immigration Debate—from the 1920s at Zeteo Journal.]
But today, this desire for exclusivity which was at one time considered normal is now in certain circles considered “hate”. There are people who seek to do away entirely with borders who also control the most influential elements of the media, and they have now set themselves up as moral authorities who may define what “hate” is, and they seek to outlaw anything which they themselves label as “hate”. So they build a slanted narrative, claim to be the guardians of their own moral standards, and then use that narrative to pressure companies and individuals to conform with their artificial standards. This allows them to use the force of law to enforce their own political opinions.
By allowing the politically motivated to define what is hate and what is wrong, we have invited tyranny upon ourselves, and now we are subjected to it. We are being forced to conform to new moral standard, standards which are contrary to our natural desire to perpetuate our own culture. But what law says that we should be compelled to comply with moral standards that have been defined by certain groups to suit their own political objectives? We will not comply.
Wikipedia, under an article on Self-determination, says that
The right of people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law... binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter’s norms. It states that people, based on respect for the principle of equal rights and fair equality of opportunity, have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no interference.
The article later quotes Woodrow Wilson in a speech he gave on the concept of self-determination on February 11th, 1918:
"National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent. Self determination is not a mere phrase; it is an imperative principle of action. . . . "
Then later in the article we read:
Criteria for the definition of "people having the right of self-determination" was proposed during 2010 Kosovo case decision of the International Court of Justice: 1. traditions and culture 2. ethnicity 3. historical ties and heritage 4. language 5. religion 6. sense of identity or kinship 7. the will to constitute a people 8. common suffering.
We are not presenting this because we think we are going to achieve justice based on these ideals, but rather, to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the current liberal establishment, which only a few years ago bombed Serbia to uphold these very ideals.
So it should be obvious, that the claims that we must be multi-cultural, the claims that we must be inclusive of people of all races, religions and traditions, are not grounded in moral concrete, and they are actually political claims which can even find themselves in conflict with the trends of international law throughout the 20th century. And since the claims that we must be multi-cultural are mere political claims, then the Constitution of the American Republic must be construed to protect the speech of those who oppose them. In fact, the first amendment never excluded “hate speech”, because there was no such thing as “hate speech” until the recent development of the concept as a method by which to prevent any serious political opposition to the current liberal establishment.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is just one of the leaders opposing free speech on the Internet, and promoting the idea that so-called “hate speech” must be prohibited. But any political opposition to the liberal tyranny now being imposed by both of the mainstream political parties is now being classified by them and by the rest of the political Left as “hate”. Once it is accepted that such political opposition is “hate”, there is no end to the relativism that enables the labeling of diverse ideas as “hate”, and all political opposition may be crushed, forcing everyone to conform to the preconceived standards of the Left.
Now the SPLC and other factions of the liberal media are taking advantage of the false narrative which the liberal media itself had developed in the wake of the recent events in Charlottesville to encourage as many tech companies as possible to fight internet “hate speech”. Recently they published an article which boasts of their success in this area and which is titled Silicon Valley has a reputation as a liberal place, but it was a critical partner in the deadly “Unite the Right” rally that cost a counter-protestor her life. Of course, this counter-protestor, out playing in traffic on such a dangerous day, is not being blamed for putting herself at risk.
So now the SPLC and other Leftist groups have been pressuring various internet services companies not to do business with the “Alt-Right” or other right-wing opposition voices on the internet lest they be liable for “partnering” with haters. We wonder if Jeffrey Dahmer’s dentist or David Berkowitz’s rabbi could be considered partners in their serial killings. We wonder whether Hertz Car Rental or the Buffalo Bills were partners in the murder of Nicole Simpson, because O.J. Simpson was on their payroll. We wonder if United Airlines was a partner in the events of 911, September 11th, 2001, simply because of the tickets it had sold.
So a Christian couple who owned a bakery were sued out of business when they refused to bake a cake for a pair of Sodomites, but now tech companies can refuse to do business with people mere;y if they do not like their politics. Christogenea’s Paypal account was dropped without notice on May 31st, over two months before Charlottesville. Other organizations, such as the League of the South, had their accounts dropped that same week. These companies are not taking the initiative to drop these accounts. Rather, it is organizations such as the SPLC or the Antifa who complain to these companies in order to instigate the termination of these accounts. Then when they are successful, the SPLC makes news of it, characterizing it as an appropriate moral choice. Nobody stood up in that manner for the poor Christian couple who used to own a bakery.
At Christogenea we have been Namecheap customers since 2012, where we have had all of our domains registered since 1&1 Internet unceremoniously closed our accounts there for “anti-semitism” in July of that year, and we have over 70 domains registered there. Recently the CEO of Namecheap, Richard Kirkendall issued a blog post defending his termination of accounts held by the Daily Stormer website. He used a rather juvenile comment made at the Stormer, which referred to stuffing Jews into ovens, as well as an invocation of the events in Charlottesville, to justify his decision. I left the following comment on his blog:
I am a Namecheap customer since 2012, and I have over 70 domains registered here. No more. As I get time, I will slowly migrate every domain away from Namecheap, for this decision alone. The Constitution and the American founders never quantified "hate speech" for good reason, because now all opposition political speech may be described as "hate speech". Immigration arguments, the desire to preserve European culture, these things have been American concerns since the founding of the Republic, but are now suddenly classified as "hate"? Dissidents, whether they can be thought of as righteous or unrighteous, no longer have a free voice on the internet thanks to decisions just like this one. As odious one may think that the Daily Stormer is, you have helped to set us down the slippery slope to intellectual tyranny.
The Left, and notably the Antifa, were the instigators of all of the violence in Charlottesville. But while the events of the day were still unfolding, the media already began repeating a narrative which blamed the Right-wing protesters themselves for all of the violence. Then they have made a woman who was obviously blocking traffic and climbing atop vehicles in the street into a martyr when somehow she died doing those things, even before the actual cause of her death was determined. So in her name all the groups of the Right are being vilified and driven from the public square, which is the internet. The internet is the modern version of the public square, and it should be unlawful for companies to refuse to do business with people of disagreeable politics, just as it was considered unlawful for a bakery to refuse to bake a cake for Sodomites.
What they are calling “White Nationalism” today was the normal political discourse only 95 years ago and up to as recently as the 1950’s. And as we have shown, in 2010 the International Court of Justice ruled that Kosovo should have autonomy and self-determination based upon “traditions and culture, ethnicity, historical ties and heritage, and a sense of identity or kinship”, among other things. But now we are considered “extremists” and demonized for having those same convictions in America in 2017. If people on the Right do not assert their rights, they are not going to have any rights at all. So how do we even begin to assert our rights on the Internet, when it has come under the control of private corporations? That is a problem which we must address. Paypal should be forced to do business with us, just as Christians are forced to do business with Sodomites. The Internet, initially invented, developed and constructed with public funds, should be treated as a public utility, and not merely for the political and business interests of the currently prevailing political parties, or for those who presume to dictate morality to the rest of us, wishing for themselves to be gods.
Here is how bad it is to be White in the eyes of these same people. There is a recent and short article from our friends at Occidental Dissent: which demonstrate just how far the leftist agenda is being advanced. It is titled ACLU Apologizes to Leftists for White Baby Ad, and demonstrates that it is no longer politically correct even to simply be White.
The Daily Stormer is shut down. Infostormer is shut down. Stormfront is shut down. Even the Jewish Alt-Right site, The Right Stuff, was down, but it is now back up. Websites such as Occidental Dissent, AltRight.com, The League of the South and others were forced to find new hosting. Occidental Dissent reports that it has been denied service by PayPal, Donorbox, GoFundMe, Patreon, Disqus and Donately, as well as having been repeatedly censored by Facebook, all in recent months.
Apple, Cloudflare, Discord, Facebook, GoDaddy, GoFundMe, Hostdime, HostGator, Instagram, Kickstarter, Network Solutions, Patreon, Paypal, Reddit, Spotify, Squarespace, Talkshoe, Twitter, Wordpress, Youtube... of course, Black Lives Matter still takes donations on Paypal.
This is not going to stop with White Nationalists. Just this past week, it was reported that D. James Kennedy Ministries, which is a rather mainstream and universalist Judeo-Christian ministry, has sued the Southern Poverty Law Center over the latter group naming the ministry a "hate group," because it is “anti-LGBT”. Freedom of Religion will certainly die along with freedom of speech if the line is not drawn hard and fast. It is already suffering from a lack of freedom of association, which we saw in the case against the bakery in Oregon.
Note: After the podcast was recorded I found video which shows that Heather Heyer was apparently thrown over the roof of the car after being struck. I remarked on a photo I had seen, but had not seen the video. Evidence in other videos shows that the entire event is suspicious. The gray Charger had been cruising the area for at least seven minutes before the accident, and the maroon minivan had apparently been parked in the middle of the street near the intersection of 4th & Water for at least 5 minutes, and it's front seats were empty. This is evident in News2Share's video Charlottesville Car Attack: Full Livestream.