Prepare your anus, you’re about to get a red pill suppository.

Alive In Tucson

Alive In Tucson

Jonathan Sparks is passionate about his political beliefs, but he said those beliefs were attacked while he was walking around Tucson… Jonathan Sparks was assaulted while wearing a MAGA hat and holding a Trump sign…As Sparks walked downtown, a man attacked him from behind… According to Sparks, they both fell to the ground. “Then I heard the words Hitler, Nazi and Trump. He was shouting things like that,” Sparks said. “He came over the top of me and over and over again, he hit me.” People nearby ran over and pulled the attacker off of Sparks. They held him down until police arrived. Tucson Police Department said the man was arrested for assault…Sparks said he felt things would be different if he was carried an anti-Trump sign, “a rainbow sign, or I was a black guy which then, I think there would be a sea of reporters here.”

Are you surprised by the violence? Surprised that a tribal, factionalized, and heterogeneous society might be riven with strife? Surprised that a media class constantly stoking the fires of racial and political resentment, utterly beholden to partisan sensationalism and outright fabrications, might foment constant unrest? Surprised that the re-education camps formerly known as schools from K-graduate school might produce intellectually-stunted ideologues so incapable of interacting with differing viewpoints that they might view violent suppression of those viewpoints as not only legitimate, but moral?

Per Jewish psychologist and college professor Lisa Feldman Barrett, it is “scientifically proven” that because of the stress that results from “hate speech,” speech can be violence. According to a survey conducted by Young America’s Foundation, college students supported universal, mandatory sensitivity training at 48%, and 53% strongly or somewhat agreed that “choosing to use or not use certain words can constitute an act of violence.” From the Cato Institute’s 2017 Free Speech and Tolerance Survey, 51% of self-identified “strong liberals” say it’s “morally acceptable” to punch Nazis. 59% of liberals say it’s hate speech to say transgender people have a mental disorder (as a side-note, “mis-gendering” someone now results in a permanent ban from Twitter”). 80% of liberals say it’s hateful or offensive to say illegal immigrants should be deported. The ideological uniformity of the colleges where students are learning these harmful ideas is astounding; per Campus Reform: 100% of the University of Georgia administrators who donated to political candidates or causes and 67.9% of its faculty who donated to political candidates or causes gave money to the Democrats;[1] 98.4% of the University of Missouri administrators who donated to political candidates or causes and 97.6% of its faculty who donated to political candidates or causes gave money to the Democrats;[2] 100% of the University of Oregon administrators who donated to political candidates or causes and 99.95% of its faculty who donated to political candidates or causes gave money to the Democrats;[3] 96.1% of the University of Texas administrators who donated to political candidates or causes and 93.5% of its faculty who donated to political candidates or causes gave money to the Democrats;[4] 100% of the Dallas, Texas-located Southern Methodist University administrators who donated to political candidates or causes and 98.8% of its faculty who donated to political candidates or causes gave money to the Democrats.[5] In New England, liberal professors outnumber conservative professors 28-to-1.

From the same Cato survey discussed above, 65% of blacks and 61% of Hispanics said that supporting someone’s right to say racist things is “as bad as holding racist views yourself.” 59% of blacks and 62% of Hispanics said that people who “don’t respect others don’t deserve the right of free speech.” Most disturbingly, 75% of blacks and 72% of Hispanics believe that “hate speech” is an act of violence. 59% of black Democrats and 65% of Hispanic Democrats believe that the government must ban “hate speech.” Given the shifting demographics of this country and the fact that most non-whites consistently vote for bigger government and an increasingly explicitly anti-white Democrat Party, you’re going to see more and more of this and this and ultimately this. So how’s that First Amendment working out for you, civ-nats? For the “British Sudanese” Nesrine Malik:

Freedom of speech is no longer a value. It has become a loophole exploited with impunity by trolls, racists and ethnic cleansing advocates. They are aided by the group I call useful liberals – the “defend to the death your right to say it” folk. The writer Mari Uyehara calls them the “free speech grifters”, those “who flog PC culture as a singularly eminent threat to the freedom of expression”. To them, the “what next?” argument foresees apocalyptic harm that might befall liberal values. It cares much less about speech we can link to violence, or that which compromises the safety of others.[6]

Responding to Malik, Tom Rogan asks:

If the freedom of speech isn't a universal right shared by all, then on whose authority is it propagated? What Malik is outlining is explicitly the reverse of the U.S. constitutional understanding of free speech…[ Malik believes] self-censorship is a righteous impulse (at least for white people)…The Left’s anti-speech advocacy finds its central locus in a sense of unshakable white guilt. Judith Butler is an important voice here, often referencing a sort of natural harm that flows inextricably from the legal tradition that allows all people to speak their minds. [For Malik] permissible speech must defer to the marginalized…The anti-speech Left defers to the idea that some mouths and ears are more equal than others.[7]

As with so much else emanating from the academy and taking root in our hyper-restricted discourse—indeed, as much of the cause of this restricted discourse—the concept of speech-as-violence is derived from critical theory, giving the notion an intellectual patina of legitimacy in order to justify the suppression of non-ideologically-compliant speech and thought. It is, in essence, sophistry as censorship, guilt-as-immutable-characteristic, and on top of that, wouldn’t you know it, collective violence is strongly correlated with social pluralism! Certainly no one saw that coming!

Consider that though relative to the rest of the planet, Italy, for example, has a robust economy—it is the eighth-largest economy by GDP and is by all metrics an advanced economy (well, the northern half of the country, anyway)—but youth unemployment in Italy is a staggering 31.9%, “ahead” of only Spain and Greece in the European Union and that income taxes are astronomical (as high as 43% officially, though several individuals I spoke to claim it is well over 50%; there is also a regional tax and a municipal tax), and then consider Conrad Ziller’s Social Forces article from March 2015, “Ethnic Diversity, Economic and Cultural Contexts, and Social Trust: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Evidence from European Regions, 2002–2010”:

The results show that across European regions, different aspects of immigration-related diversity are negatively related to social trust. In longitudinal perspective, an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust. Tests of the conditional hypotheses reveal that regional economic growth and ethnic polarization as a cultural context moderate the relationship. Immigration growth is particularly strongly associated with a decrease in social trust in contexts of economic decline and high ethnic polarization.[8]

Now throw hundreds of thousands of predatory, pre-modern men from Africa and the Middle East into the picture—non-working men housed and fed by your astronomical taxes while infrastructure continues to decline and the economy stagnates—and voila! You have the perfect post-national and post-racial cocktail of harmonious co-existence. Or not. Though Robert Putnam claims, without providing evidence, that, “In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits,” he has provided the most comprehensive study to date proving that:

Immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.[9]

It might surprise you to learn that California, America’s most diverse state, also has the worst air quality, the greatest wealth disparity, and was ranked as the worst state to live in by the US News based on health care, education, economy, opportunity, infrastructure, crime and corrections, fiscal stability, and quality of life. This ranking merely echoes what Putnam’s research revealed about Los Angeles, what was then “the most diverse human habitation in human history” and the “crown jewel” of the multi-cultural mess that is California today and our future tomorrow if we don’t turn the tide, and soon.

[1] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11490

[2] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11478

[3] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11468

[4] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11450

[5] https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=11432

[6] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/22/hate-speech-violence-liberals-rightwing-extremists

[7] https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/nesrine-malik-and-the-three-intellectual-foundations-of-the-anti-free-speech-left

[8] https://academic.oup.com/sf/article-abstract/93/3/1211/2332107

[9] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x

The Huffington Post Wants to "Fight Hate" by Letting People Die

The Huffington Post Wants to "Fight Hate" by Letting People Die

Hammer and Sickle Cell

Hammer and Sickle Cell