Democrats' latest attempt to use a 'white supremacy' scare to crush their opposition

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  texan1211  •  2 weeks ago  •  14 comments

By:   Adam B. Coleman (New York Post)

Democrats' latest attempt to use a 'white supremacy' scare to crush their opposition
The Democratic mission of defeating white supremacy moved from decrying a fringe minority's actions to demanding oversight of the speech of the majority.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Adam B. Coleman

Politicians of old wanted to persuade the public by capturing hearts and minds, but today's pols find more value in capturing our tongues. They want all Americans to take the most paranoid position on how dangerous our majority-white nation is for its non-white citizens.

Since the 2017 Charlottesville chaos involving a clash between a faction of neo-Nazis and protesters, notable Democrats (including President Joe Biden) have mimicked a broken record as they repeat the phrase that pays: White supremacy is the greatest threat to our nation.

But the Democratic mission of defeating white supremacy quickly moved from decrying a fringe minority's actions to demanding oversight of the speech of the majority, which is exactly the goal of Democratic Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee's new bill, the Leading Against White Supremacy Act.

The bill aims, it says, to "prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime." The addition of conspiracy means that people who use supposed hate speech online could face criminal charges under the legislation even if no one takes action taken based on their speech.

One clause states the charge of conspiracy would apply to someone who "published material advancing white supremacy, white supremacist ideology, antagonism based on 'replacement theory,' or hate speech that vilifies or is otherwise directed against any non-White person or group."

With the Department of Justice potentially granted the authority to investigate and mitigate any sort of conspiracy of white supremacy, we must ask the most obvious question: What is white supremacy? It's a viral phrase that has quickly infected our political lexicon while allowing each host to change the definition as he or she sees fit — but a definition that applies to everything ultimately means nothing.

"White supremacy" is a term that universally fits like a glove onto your opposition, and if the accusations fit, you mustn't quit. Even if Republicans like New York Rep. Elise Stefanik decry white supremacy in the aftermath of the Buffalo supermarket massacre by lambasting the shooter's actions as "pure evil," Democrats will remain vigilant in declaring Stefanik and others in their political opposition inspired the rare heinous nature of a sick individual.

Democratic politicians love this term's fluidity because it provides a perfect rhetorical weapon they can constantly direct at Republican voters and politicians. And a bill of this nature gives the federal government authority to prosecute dissidents and political opponents with the accusation of conspiracy to inspire.

Democrats have moved from wanting to criminalize speech inciting violence to that "inspiring" violence because incitement has a higher standard of proof. Inspiring violence is indirect and unprovable, and Democrats want the American public to attribute equal malice to the people allegedly inspiring and the ones committing the violence.

Identity politics' end game has always been empowering the government with the facade of protecting vulnerable demographics by dissolving the rights of all Americans. This bill is not about preventing another racially motivated atrocity but instead about further weaponizing federal law enforcement for the benefit of the DC political establishment.

This has always been about capturing our tongues so we don't challenge their power, and they are willing to use tragedies like the Buffalo mass shooting and Charlottesville as reasons we should sacrifice our speech, to supposedly prevent another dreadful event from occurring — much like one failed shoe bomber is the reason we forever will have to remove our shoes before going on a plane.

Politicians work with the media to highlight certain atrocities over others to push the narrative that garners the most empathy and societal helplessness, giving the government carte blanche to behave as tyrannical saviors who restrict our rights for our own good.

Rep. Elise Stefanik publicly denounced white supremacy following the Buffalo supermarket massacre, but Democrats still came for the rep's neck. Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images

It's the reason Biden immediately went to Buffalo after a white mass shooter attacked a predominately black supermarket — yet couldn't find the time to visit the victims and their families, who were predominantly white, of the black assailant of the Waukesha, Wis., parade massacre; some tragedies are more equal than others.

If Democrats' long-term strategy succeeds, Americans will lose some of their rights and be easier targets of political persecution — and minorities, especially black people, will be the scapegoats for the actions of zealous, corrupt government actors.

White supremacy isn't the greatest threat to our nation; a corrupt federal government is.

Adam B. Coleman is the author of "Black Victim to Black Victor" and founder of Wrong Speak Publishing. Follow him on Substack: adambcoleman.substack.com


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago
"White supremacy" is a term that universally fits like a glove onto your opposition, and if the accusations fit, you mustn't quit. Even if Republicans like New York Rep. Elise Stefanik decry white supremacy in the aftermath of the Buffalo supermarket massacre by lambasting the shooter's actions as "pure evil," Democrats will remain vigilant in declaring Stefanik and others in their political opposition inspired the rare heinous nature of a sick individual. Democratic politicians love this term's fluidity because it provides a perfect rhetorical weapon they can constantly direct at Republican voters and politicians. And a bill of this nature gives the federal government authority to prosecute dissidents and political opponents with the accusation of conspiracy to inspire.

And we see this played out daily.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

In other words any divergent view can be considered "hate speech."  Perhaps that is why the SCOTUS ruled that even "hate speech" must be tolerated.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 weeks ago

No, but conspiring to commit violent hate crimes is criminal hate speech which should not be allowed on American internet sites!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @2.1    2 weeks ago
No, but conspiring to commit violent hate crimes is criminal hate speech

Even if someone expresses views you don't like, that does not mean that the person was conspiring to do anything at all.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
2.1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @2.1    2 weeks ago

The word violent has taken on new meaning as of late.  What is your definition in this context?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 weeks ago
The bill aims, it says, to "prevent and prosecute white supremacy inspired hate crime and conspiracy to commit white supremacy inspired hate crime."

That leave it open for a lot of interpretation.  But then again when you are trying to push an agenda, like the left has been, the details are generally made up as they go.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2    2 weeks ago

The fact that Hunter Biden left a damning laptop at a repair shop was classified as "disinformation."

I think we best keep the left away from monitoring speech.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2    2 weeks ago

Only “white Supremacist” hate speech would be illegal. black supremacist speech would be fine.  Racist speech against Jews would be fine, so long as the speaker isn’t white etc…

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.3    2 weeks ago

And as in 1984, everything would be called the opposite of what it really is.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

racist and idiotic.  

SOP for rep lee

 
 
 
George
Freshman Guide
4  George    2 weeks ago

Hate Speech, Assault rifles, The stupid fucks in the media sure love their made up terms to rile the even dumber sheep up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5  seeder  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

After reading this, Democrats should never, ever talk about "big government" taking rights away or being a "big brother".

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 weeks ago
emocrats should never, ever talk about "big government" taking rights away

It's like they've never even heard of the First Amendment. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
5.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 weeks ago

What is scaring me is the resemblance of 1929 Germany where one party made everything they didn't like illegal and pushed for total control of all.

1984?  Yeah - maybe.  Government rule??  Yeah - look at how all things the Dems don't like are being pushed under the rugs and their "new" philosophy of "we know what's best for you" is coming to fore.

 
 

Who is online

Kavika
freepress
Hallux
Ender
Just Jim NC TttH
CB
afrayedknot
JBB
Nerm_L
evilgenius


Ed-NavDoc


29 visitors