Subscribe via RSS Feed

Redefining “Hate” as “Terrorism”

Jim Goad || Amid all the empty, gaseous, fear-mongering bullshit we constantly hear about “terrorism,” lost is the fact that what were arguably that USA’s first anti-terrorist laws were designed to crush the KKK in the South during Reconstruction.

Free SpeechThe Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 expanded federal power under the guise of protecting Southern blacks. These laws were so aggressively enforced that they basically wiped out the Klan’s first incarnation within a year. At least temporarily, this flexing of federal muscle protected many Southern blacks. But just like the Civil War, it grossly extended federal power…as has the recent War on Terrorism.

Would it be “racist” of me to suspect that ever since the War Between the States, every political move designed to protect the “oppressed” was also designed to enhance federal power? Is it paranoid to ponder whether under all the nonsense we hear about civil rights and hate crimes and terrorism are convenient covers for what is essentially a bald-ass, butt-naked power grab?

In the wake of the recent mass murder of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, SC, many have asked why accused killer Dylann Roof isn’t being depicted as a terrorist or charged as one. They argue that if he had not been a white male basking in white privilege like a lazy beluga whale sunning his snow-white belly somewhere in the Arctic Circle, everyone would have immediately called him a sweaty, smelly, swarthy, dark-skinned terrorist.

As Osama bin Laden would have said were he alive today, that’s all a crock of shit.
“As Osama bin Laden would have said were he alive today, that’s all a crock of shit.”

When crazed psychiatrist Nidal Hasan went bonkers with a gun at an Army base in Fort Hood, TX in 2009 while shouting “Allahu akbar!” and picking off 13 victims, the feds refused to prosecute him as a terrorist. But the US Justice Department announced this past Friday that it’s investigating the Charleston shooting as a possible terrorist incident. So enough with your baseless whimpering about how white privilege will protect Dylann Roof from being charged as a terrorist. I’ve just demonstrated that reality is the complete opposite of what you’re claiming it is, and maybe one day you’ll have enough decency and honor to not only admit your errors, but to thank me for correcting you.

Dylann Roof should be tried for murder, and that’s it. Any attempts to criminalize his thought processes during the course of the alleged murders are by their very nature totalitarian.

But apparently nine counts of murder aren’t enough for some people. And apparently even a “hate crime” enhancement—which isn’t a separate charge, merely a recommendation for a longer sentence if “hate” was somehow involved in the crime—isn’t sufficient for them. They’re clamoring for the feds to take it to the hoop and also charge Roof with domestic terrorism.

They also whine louder than a nursery full of squalling newborns about how when a white person shoots up a bunch of people, the “media” depicts them as mentally ill lone wolves, whereas when a nonwhite person goes on a shooting spree, all nonwhite people are implicated and defamed and stereotyped.

Sure. That must be why last week was a gleeful orgy of blaming Roof’s rampage on every white person who ever lived. That’s why the Rebel flag was almost entirely taken out of circulation for perpetuity last week. That’s why there were at least 1,000 editorial homilies last week about how all white people need to swallow a pint glass fulla guilt and take responsibility for creating and maintaining a culture where black people are always afraid of being attacked and bludgeoned and spat upon and billy-clubbed and shot dead in church.

That also must be why, whenever there’s an Islamist-inspired mass murder, most of the American media, as well as the president, urge us not to blame Islam as a whole.

By the way, what is the difference between a hate crime and a terrorist attack?

There’s no difference at all because both terms are essentially meaningless.

It’s bitterly ironic to hear any established government fanning fear of “terrorism,” because all political regimes retain power through systemic psychological terrorism and the threat of punishment. And they enjoy the fulsome semantic luxury of using the word “terrorist” to smear anyone who threatens their power.

I’m going to quote a Jew here, so some of you brace yourselves if you find such things emotionally triggering. Hannah Arendt once allegedly said:

One of the greatest advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.

Replace “statement of fact” with “violent act,” and the same principle applies to so-called hate crimes and terrorist acts. Such concepts create whole new crimes, ones based entirely on motive and that are therefore impossible to quantify. These are nothing more than thoughtcrimes. In order to prosecute and punish such offenses, a cumbersome new federal bureaucracy must be built to create public fear, temporarily alleviate it, then continue creating more fear in order to justify its continued existence.

In other words, to protect a gullible and easily manipulated public from “terrorism,” the government must persistently terrorize the public with threats both real and imaginary, both foreign and domestic. If that sounds paranoid, well, I’d rather be paranoid than naïve.

I expect the caretakers of our anarchically tyrannical welfare state to soon use the terms “racist” and “domestic terrorist” together so often that they become synonymous in the public mind. And to protect the public against all these newly christened terrorists, the government will naturally need to hire more lawyers and cops and bureaucrats and spies and prison guards.

Is it remotely possible that many whites are currently critical of the government because they sense it’s intrinsically hostile to their interests? Will it even be possible in five years to suggest such a thing without being labeled a terrorist?

I wrote long ago that I suspected all rhetoric and laws against “hate speech” and “hate crimes” were designed to ultimately block all criticism of the government. Nothing has happened in the interim to dissuade me from this suspicion.

I don’t generally like to make predictions, but I sense a gradual phasing out of the term “hate crime” in favor of “domestic terrorism.” Any criticism of nonwhites OR the government, no matter how intrinsically nonthreatening, will eventually all be lumped together as terrorist threats. The very idea of domestic terrorism provides huge growth opportunities for the federal government—opportunities it’d be foolish not to seize. And the feds are no fools, at least not like the rest of us are.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: American Voice, Establishment News

Comments are closed.

Top