Free Speech in the Age of Political Correctness

Kevin MacDonald is a retired California State University Professor of Psychology and the the editor of the Occidental Observer, a publication concerned with "white identity, white interests, and the culture of the West".

According to that well-known source of objective information, Trikipedia, MacDonald is "best known for writings that propagate a conspiracy theory which characterize Jewish behavior as a group evolutionary strategy."

Other sources readily accessed by Google take a similar line, describing MacDonald as an anti-Semite, white supremacist, conspiracy theorist, or to summarize, a mentally deranged and nasty piece of slime.

However, based on his scholarly treatise, The Culture of Critique, it would seem reasonable to suppose that MacDonald is not some racist nut, but a rational scholar examining the way in which diaspora Jews often interact with the people of their host nation.

Whether MacDonald's analysis is generally sound it is not my purpose here to consider, although having dipped into his major treatise, I can say that it proceeds in accordance with the normal methods of rational academic discourse and confirms much of what is apparent to the casual observer concerning Jewish beliefs, traditions, and modes of behavior.

It is naturally painful, therefore, for a person such as MacDonald to find themselves generally ostracized for their sincerely held and carefully weighed opinions on a subject to which they have devoted lengthy study.

Reflecting the painful social consequences of his academic pursuits, MacDonald recently published an article entitled: Ideas on maintaining relationships with the less committed in a dark age, wherein he states:

... Many of us are forced to deal with personal issues because of our political-cultural beliefs. A typical situation might be a wife or girlfriend—the great majority of activists on the dissident right are male—who is terrified of it becoming known that she is associated with someone who is shunned and socially ostracized. But of course, it may also be other family members or friends—a particularly painful experience. ...

Discussion of the article at the Unz Review raised the issue of American's constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech prompting the remark:

... This is comedy gold. First, that people believe that we still have freedom of speech. ...

In fact, Americans do still have the constitutional right of free speech. However, freedom of speech is a legal freedom, whereas freedom of action, whether in the form of speech or otherwise, is subject to both legal and social limitations.

Political correctness diminishes or eradicates the value of the legal right of free speech by imposing social control over speech, i.e., informal sanctions imposed by friends and family, or economic sanctions imposed by employers, state bureaucracies, political parties, etc.

The pervasive and uniformly PC impact of media, the propaganda dispensed by state-managed educational institutions, and the Google-style economic punishment of the expression of non-PC beliefs, ensures that the exercise of Freedom of Speech is a rare and often painful experience.

The result is a massive build up of resentment among the socially oppressed until something gives. In the UK, the working class, comprehensively betrayed by Phony Bliar's PC "New Labour" party --which deliberately flooded the working class areas of declining industrial towns with immigrants of an alien race, religion and culture, has defected in large numbers to a supposedly populist Johnson Tory Party.

The consequence of this reaction remains to be seen. But if the Johnson Government fails to deliver for Britain's working class the consequences may be be ugly in the extreme.

Meantime, the liberal left are turning up the invective against the working man. Hence the headline in that most disgusting of all self-hating white liberal newspapers, The Independent:

The antisemitic monster rising from the slime is not Corbynism – it is white nationalism

There you have the resort to hate speech direct in the cause of British national genocide through suppressed reproduction and mass replacement immigration.

The outcome? Civil War, anyone? Most Americans think it likely. Why should it not be likely in Britain too, where another civil war seems overdue.

Related: Joe Digenova: American coup d'etat:

Why Canada Needs Less Diversity

Jagmeet Singh, leader of Canada's New Democratic Party, revealed the ugly face of racial and cultural diversity in Canada when, during a pre-election leaders' debate, he told Maxime Bernier, leader of the People's Party of Canada, that he had no right to a place on the leaders' debate stage:

when you incite hatred,you don’t deserve a platform...your ideas are hurtful to Canada.

And in what way had Bernier supposedly incited hatred?

By opposing official multiculturalism and the Government's intention to raise Canada's immigration rate to the highest per capita rate of any country in the world, a rate considered too high by 49% of Canadians. 

And who is Jagmeet Singh, this national leader who equates opposition to higher immigration and government sponsored multiculturalism as "hatred"?

According to Indian intelligence, he is a vociferous anti-India advocate and supporter of pro-Khalistani sympathisers in Canada, the same group responsible for the largest mass murder in Canadian history, the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182 with 329 people, mostly Indian, on board, including 82 children under the age of 13.

More specifically, opindia reports:

According to the latest dossier prepared by the Indian intelligence officials, Jagmeet Singh, the Leader of Canada’s second-largest party, remains a ”pro-Khalistani and a pro-Pakistani” ringleader in the country despite his deep Punjabi roots. On a specific report of India’s external intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing, Singh was denied a visa in 2013 for his anti-Indian stance. The RAW has revealed in one its report that Singh had been funding Khalistani outfits, operating from Pakistan. He is also connected with prominent Khalistani and Kashmiri separatist groups based in different countries of Europe. Latest reports also suggest that Jagmeet Singh is also trying to bring Khalistani and Kashmiri separatists under one umbrella in Canada. Recently he held a meeting in this connection at his residence in Ontario.

Bizarrely, Canada's so-called National Observer, in reporting Singh's attack on Bernier's right of free speech, accuses Bernier of anti-Semitism on the ground that he described all of his opponents (correctly, as it happens) as globalists:

He [Bernier] wasted little time ... tossing out an incendiary anti-Semitic slur ... when he declared that “the other leaders on this stage are globalists” and attacked the United Nations as a “dysfunctional organization.”

 So apparently, if you oppose the liberal genocidal plan for the destruction of the sovereign democratic nation state, then you're an anti-Semite. That is quite weird, implying as it does, that globalism is a Jewish imperative. But if globalism is a Jewish imperative, why is it anti-Semitic to say so? Or are we to understand that even truth can be anti-Semitic?

Related: 
Alain Destexhe: France: The Headscarf Debate is Not about Headscarves
VOE: Danish study: “Muslims need to leave Denmark”

Anti-Semitism, a Jewish Secret Weapon?

Anti-Semitism is good for the Jews apparently:

YouTube Won’t Ban Neo-Nazi Group Chanting ‘Gas the K**kes, Race War Now’

Gotta maintain the appearance of eternal victimhood at the hands of irrational haters somehow.

When Anti-Semitism Is Both Patriotic and Just

The United States is, and always has been, a plutocracy. Legislators and the Executive are elected, but they take election campaign funds and, in most cases, personal benefits (the use of corporate-owned executive jets, fishing lodges, plus after-office directorships, consultancies, book deals, etc.) from the moneyed interests. These payoffs are absolutely guaranteed, not because the paymasters are honest or inherently trustworthy, but because they have to convince the next lot of office-holders that they will get theirs. Moreover, the same interests fund both parties. Thus, when a Money-Power-controlled Republican or Democrat gets the boot from the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office, they are replaced in the House, the Senate, or the Oval Office by a Money-Power-controlled representatives of the other party.

This system of government is not necessarily all bad. It insures that the ship of state does not veer crazily from one direction to another with every turn in the electoral fortunes of the ruling political parties. Moreover, the legislators and the President are elected and thus do no doubt endeavor to do good to their constituents, or at least to appear to do good to their constituents, so far as that is consistent with loyalty to their financial backers.

Jewish Media Domination and Censorship

While taking a break from contemplating the intelligence of crows, or some such important matter, I came across a piece by former UK Ambassador, His Erstwhile Excellency, Craig Murray, entitled: The New McCarthyism – The “Anti-Semitism” Hysteria Gripping the UK. In response to a post with which I was in general agreement, I made some short comment. This, however, was very soon deleted, although not before another person had commented on my comment, thereby confirming that I had indeed made, not imagined, my comment.

Such acts of censorship, especially by an avowed liberal such as Craig Murray, irritate me. If my facts or arguments are incorrect, I'd like to know why, rather seeing them arrogantly wiped from the page of the next five minutes of Internet history, probably by some politically correct ignoramus running Murray's blog. Thus I reiterated my comment with some explanation, which in anticipation of its deletion (which occurred within minutes), I reproduce here.

I Thought I'd made a comment here, but no sign of it. But wait, yes, there's Giyane's iynane reply, so I must really have made a comment. Wonder what Craig Murray or his PC filter found objectionable? Let's see, I quoted Craig's claim that:

anti-Semitism is the most emotionally charged of all political accusations. As it should be.

I disputed his conclusion "that it should be," arguing that anti-Semitism is held to be the most awful racism because that is what the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry and the Con/Lib/Lab/BNP Friends of Israel say it is. What's the problem with that?

What I should have added is that the mainly Jewish-controlled US media and entertainments industry are always ready to tell you that criticism of any Jewish person (Bernie Madoff, is one example) or thing (like white phosphorus in Gaza) is anti-Semititic, as is any suggestion that Jews have undue control of the American media, entertainments industry, banks, etc.

Several years ago there was a wonderful debate on the CBC, Canada's national radio channel, chaired by a Jewish person, Anna Maria Tremonte, in which three people participated, two of them Israelis, the third a Toronto Jew. The topic was whether criticism of Israel was anti-Semitic, which, they agreed, it is. Surely, no one would invent such an absurdity, since no one would believe it, yet the reality was presented in all seriousness as informative comment. Well I suppose it was informative, but not of what the participants in the discussion were discussing.

But to revert to CM's act of censorship, was my comment objectionable because I said that Jews control most of the US media and entertainments industry, including the pornography industry? But that is well known and documented by Jews.

For example, as Joel Stein wrote in the LA Times:

I have never been so upset by a poll in my life. Only 22% of Americans now believe "the movie and television industries are pretty much run by Jews," down from nearly 50% in 1964. The Anti-Defamation League, which released the poll results last month, sees in these numbers a victory against stereotyping. Actually, it just shows how dumb America has gotten. Jews totally run Hollywood.

Or as Aberdeen University Professor Nathan Abrams wrote in the Jewish Quarterly:

A story little told is that of Jews in Hollywood’s seedier cousin, the adult film industry. Perhaps we’d prefer to pretend that the ‘triple-exthnics’ didn’t exist, but there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America.

The role of Jews in the US news media is less obvious, for one needs to identify not only the handful of corporate owners of the MSM, but also the directors of these various controlling conglomerates and banks. (There are, it is true, long lists on the Web of Jews in the US media, although I will not embarrass you by linking to anything so "anti-Semitic.").

What is clear, though, is that the US news media (and Canadian), are for the most part extremely cautious in criticizing things Jewish, while often crassly applying the anti-Semite label to anyone critical of Jews, or Jewish institutions, or Israel, such labels being applied even to Americans and Canadians as a whole. Amazingly, such criticism of Israel as does appear in the US news media has been blamed by one prominent Jew on the preponderance of anti-Semitic Jews in the media!

The same fear of eliciting the anti-Semitism charge is true of the British news media. Thus, Chris Elliott, the Guardian's readers' editor, for exam wrote on 6 November 2011:

"Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel," citing recent cases where The Guardian received complaints regarding language chosen to describe Jews or Israel.

Does the media express the same extreme caution, and sensitivity about language used when writing about other groups? Apparently not. 

Is This Picture Anti-Semitic or Is It Anti-Theft?

As the Toronto Star reports, this picture, displayed in Toronto's York University Student Centre, shows:

a person looking at a bulldozer close to a building while holding rocks. The person is shown wearing what looks like a Palestinian flag with a map of Israel without its borders. At the bottom of the mural, the words “justice” and “peace” can be seen along with other text.

Paul Bronfman, a A Toronto film industry executive, has announced that his company is pulling its support for York University’s Cinema and Media Arts program because of the display of this picture, which, Mr. Bronfman said, "is anti-Israel." He then continued:

It made me sick to my stomach and very angry. “We live in an amazing city, an amazing country, and to have this happening under our noses is disgusting. It’s subtly anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. It’s anti-Canadian.

But what is disgusting about being anti-Israel when the Israeli state enables the theft of Palestinian land for the construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories?

And what has opposing Israeli state policy got to do with anti-Semitism? To say that the one necessarily implies the other is like saying that to condemn George W. Bush's Iraq war amounts to hatred of Americans.

As for equating anti-Semitism with anti-Canadianism, it amounts to saying that Canada should be subservient to the interests of Israel, just as the Canadian Ukrainian Congress seeks to make Canada subservient to the interests of Russophobic Ukrainian nationalists. Both are manifestations of ethnic politics that are potentially of great harm to Canada.

What the picture depicts is the violent (i.e., rock throwing) resentment of Palestinian youth at the theft of their land by Israeli settlers. So which is worst, stealing land or throwing rocks? Apparently, in Mr. Bronfman's mind, Israeli crimes against the Palestinians are to be ignored, while the World condemns the violent though largely ineffectual Palestinian reaction as a terrible crime.

Moreover, according to Mr. Bronfman, anyone who takes a different view is an anti-Semite. OK, then, on that definition an anti-Semite is an opponent of Israeli crimes against the indigenous people of occupied Palestine, which is not such a bad thing, is it?

Related:

The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine