Category: social pricing

Defending POPA

Defending the Political Opinion Protection Act (POPA).

Of relevance to this, I state the following.

Free speech is meaningless if expressing dissident opinions makes life in a modern society completely untenable.   In this manner, “private” social pricing attacks against dissident beliefs, opinions, and activism have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly today when “private” businesses and institutions rival governments with respect to power and influence. Outsourcing speech suppression from the public to the private spheres – transforming the “private” into a tool of public coercion – violates the First Amendment in spirit and this problem needs to be rectified through legal and political change.

Advertisements

The Political Opinion Protection Act

Against social pricing.

This is a very crude, initiative draft of an anti-social pricing law (and explanation) that requires significant further development and refinement. Consider it a starting point.

Political and social opinions, beliefs, and ideologies, and the adherence and promotion thereof, now define a protected class of individuals, against whom business and institutions, private or public, cannot discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.  The only exception is where the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies are directly and overtly incompatible with the core mission of the business or institution, strictly defined by analogy to the examples that follow.

Now, there will be some examples – relatively rare – where sociopolitical opinions would disqualify an individual for employment (or service).  For example, the core mission of a conservative political foundation is the creation, analysis, dissemination, and promotion of conservative political ideas and ideals; a committed anti-conservative progressive can reasonably be seen as an unacceptable employee of such a foundation (and the converse is true: a hard core right-winger would be unacceptable in a progressive/liberal political foundation).  Planned Parenthood should not have to hire anti-abortion activists; right-to-life organizations should not have to employ abortion doctors or pro-choice activists.  These are clear examples where the core missions directly deal with sociopolitical memes and thus certain beliefs would be obviously incompatible.

However, indirect factors allegedly affecting core missions are not the same as the core missions themselves.

The core mission of a restaurant is to sell food to customers.  A restaurant may claim that “diversity helps business by expanding the pool of potential customers,” but promoting diversity is not the core mission of the business, selling food is.  Thus, opposition to diversity cannot be reasonably seen as incompatible with the fundamental core mission of the business.  A restaurant may claim that “immigrant labor is important for our profits,” but promoting immigration is not the core mission and hence an anti-immigration attitude cannot be seen as being incompatible for someone to work in that business. On the other hand, a steakhouse can have a reasonable rationale for skepticism in hiring a militant animal rights activist (and, conversely, PETA can reasonably have the same attitude toward, say, a butcher).

Let us consider academia. The core mission of academia is education and research/scholarship; basically to create and disseminate knowledge and ideas.  An academic institution can make (and they do make) arguments about how (demographic) diversity assists them in their mission, and that may be true or it may just be justification for social engineering.  True or not, promoting diversity is not the core mission of academia, and therefore opposition to multiracial/multicultural diversity cannot be seen as incompatible with the core mission.  Indeed, if we expand the definition of diversity to include types of (e.g., intellectual) diversity that can have a direct impact on exposing students to a more varied set of ideas, then one can argue that it is a good thing to have individuals opposed to multicultural diversity in academia; it is important to have a diversity of beliefs and opinions (perhaps we need affirmative action for the Far Right in academia?).

It is also important to prevent businesses and institutions from redefining their core missions so as to exclude opinions they do not like.  Core missions are those that derive naturally from the existential meaning of what the business and institution is, how they have been perceived and/or are perceived and/or will be perceived by reasonable people, and which can be organically associated with the “product” of the business or institution. Thus, attempts by, say, a college to redefine its core mission so as to include “promoting diversity” should be rejected, since that is an ad hoc extension of the natural and organic real fundamental academic core mission, and therefore can be reasonably seen as an attempt to evade the spirit and letter of this new law.

Services like Internet providers or transportation companies have a core mission in providing the specific service that defines the company; the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies of current or potential customers do not affect the core mission (indeed, one would think a business, valuing their core mission, would want to maximize their customer base and not arbitrarily exclude customers) and thus cannot be used as an excuse to deny service. Ad hoc redefining of the core mission to exclude “undesirable customers” is, again, forbidden.

Ragnarok II

More.

Read this. 

We demand legislation forbidding all US companies from adopting politically correct terms of service and employment. All private companies must be forced by law to respect freedom of speech and thought.

That is essential, but expect the System to fight that tooth-and-nail.  In the absence (yet) of overt “speech laws” due to the First Amendment, social pricing is the number one method to keep White folks in line.  Antifa violence and all the rest is nothing by comparison, a firecracker compared to a thermonuclear device.

Once people are free to express dissident opinions without fear of workplace punishment, the System’s biggest stick collapses, and they simply no longer have sufficient carrots for all the disaffected Whites.  So, yes, we need a “political opinion protection act.” 

The current administration could have been the best hope for that, but with Trump/Sessions trying to out-virtue signal the worst of the GOP cucks, it seems unlikely.

We should not give up though.  Extended First Amendment protections to the private sphere is probably the single most important idea of this post.  With that, the dam cracks and eventually collapses.

On Trump.

I feel like vomiting after watching this video.
The Alt-Right attempted to hold a peaceful rally in Charlottesville, VA. We had to get a federal court order to be able to exercise our First Amendment rights. After arriving in Lee Park, we were attacked by violent Antifa while the police stood down and watched. Gov. Terry McAuliffe declared a “state of emergency” and riot police pushed us into hordes of violent leftists who attacked dozens of people.
In response to this outrage, Donald Trump has condemned us, praised the Virginia State Police and said nothing about the actions of violent Antifa groups who will only be further emboldened to attack his supporters all over the country. While Donald Trump talks about restoring “law and order,” the reality of the matter is that police departments in leftwing cities are standing down and ceding the state’s monopoly on violence to lynch mobs. We saw this happen in Portland and Charlottesville the last two weekends.
Everything I have said was captured on video. For two years now, Donald Trump has said nothing while violent lynch mobs have attacked his supporters all over the country, not only in Charlottesville, but also in Washington, DC during the inauguration and Berkeley and many other places. A disabled man who supported Donald Trump was even kidnapped and tortured on Facebook Live in Chicago and he said nothing. President Trump talks about “equal rights,” but the truth of the matter is that White Americans in his country are routinely subjected to censorship, physical violence, employment discrimination, intimidation and massive civil rights violations while the Trump administration looks the other way. It does so because it is afraid of the power of the mainstream media.
The Alt-Right will stand with White Americans who are under siege in Trump’s America who have been deserted by their president. The Trump administration showed today that it is more interested in moving forward with its agenda of massive tax cuts for the wealthy than in defending our most basic constitutional rights. Sadly, President Trump’s chilling message will only stoke the flames of the violent Left and will strike fear into all those who dare to speak out against it who know they will inevitably be attacked now and portrayed as wicked racists by a vicious and hostile media cartel.
Donald Trump has given a green light to Antifa. He has sided with a group of people who attack us on sight and attempt to kill us and for that the Alt-Right can no longer support him. What Donald Trump has done today is an unforgivable betrayal of his supporters.

Devlin is a smart fellow and I always liked his writing, but at some point we need to stop making excuses for Trump.  Yes, his press conference wasn’t bad, but the fact is he and Sessions never cracked down on Antifa and they both denounced us all.

The Free-Riding/Social Pricing Paradox

If free-riding makes ethnic nepotism “impossible” than why are social pricing and anti-discrimination laws felt to be necessary?

Question:  If free-riding is such a problem for ethnic nepotism and various forms of ethnic activism, if it is all so “impossible” and “unrealistic” then why, pray tell, is there an intricate system of social pricing – never mind actual anti-discrimination laws – designed to dissuade people from engaging in such “impossible” and “unrealistic” behavior?  If everyone would just free-ride on the ethnic altruism of a small number of naive saps, then where is the problem?  Social pricing would seem superfluous, and anti-discrimination laws even more superfluous.  Why, people would just like, you know, spontaneously engage in aracial behavior, right?
No, they would not.  That fact than a repressive “carrot-and-stick” regime of de jure laws and de facto social pricing has to be in place to punish (for Whites only, of course) ethnic altruism/ethnic nepotism while incentivizing (for Whites only, of course) neutral or even pro-alien behavior is practical prima facie evidence that people – including many Whites – would naturally engage in ethnic altruism and ethnic nepotism in a “free marketplace” system lacking in coercive laws and social controls.  There is no other reason for all these laws and social strictures except the very real fear that in the “free marketplace” of ideas and actions people would act in a more ethny-based fashion and discrimination (pro-ethny and anti-alien) would be commonplace.

Ben Raymond and Greg Johnson

Interesting podcast.

I finally was able to listen to the Ben Raymond-Greg Johnson podcast. Raymond made a very favorable impression on me and I wish him and National Action well.

I agree with 99% of what I heard.  Only two areas of disagreement.

First, the idea was put forth that we on the far-Right should not criticize our fellows on the Right; if we disagree with their approach, we should merely do better and let our success speak for itself – a “Darwinian” method of outcompeting, rather than directly critiquing, one’s opponents in the “movement.”

At one time I agreed with that.  Unfortunately, it does not seem to work. There is no accountability in the “movement,” decades of failure are excused or misdiagnosed as some sort of bizarre “success,” activists engage in personality cult followings of failed “movement” leaders, and the affirmative action policy in the “movement” protects many of these failures from being held to account for the damage they’ve done, while at the same time preventing others from actualizing their own, potentially superior, ideas as part of any so-called “Darwinian competition.”  The “game” is fixed and until that changes I see it necessary to critique the “movement” and related precincts of the Right.

Second, Raymond’s comments about the advantages American activists allegedly have in terms of “free speech” ignores the specter of social pricing in America, far more potent than in Europe.  This was discussed previously by Le Brun and Johnson and Raymond needs to understand that in certain ways America is more repressive than Europe.  For godssakes, even a billionaire political candidate, the leading candidate of the GOP, cannot hold a rally in a major American city.  Free speech?

By the way, one point of agreement is the criticism of mainstreaming in the podcast.  Cue the “pink panther” music and exit, stage left, one French mainstreamer….

Set Aside Your Humility

I was recently listening to a short podcast Greg Johnson did with an Estonian nationalist.
Johnson made two key points:
1. Because of social pricing, racial nationalists in the “First Amendment Free Speech” USA actually have less scope of action than do European nationalists with the “hate speech laws” that the Europeans have to contend with.  In other words, if the System can impose social pricing costs roughly equivalent to that observed in this Outer Limits episode, then “free speech” protections in America are mostly toothless.  Now, I say “mostly” because, you see, if First Amendment protection was to be ended in the US, we would NOT get an accompanying increase in social freedom as in Europe; instead we would have both social pricing AND speech laws.  Given that, having at least minimal legal protection is something, even though in many cases it is a very weak reed to lean upon.  What we need to is retain, if possible, the minimal First Amendment protections AND somehow defeat social pricing.  That defeat could in theory be done through the System, by making such pricing illegal, but the chances of that are minimal, given that the System itself is propped up by, and derives much of its power from, social pricing.  The alternative is an “end run” around social pricing by building alternative social and economic structures that would make such social pricing toothless. Unfortunately, that would require that a high percentage of American racial nationalists be sane, rational, organized, intelligent, and thoughtful, rather than be foaming-at-the-mouth imbecilic Nutzis.  The bottom line is that, paradoxically, European nationalists have more real freedom of speech than do American racial nationalists, because broad-based social pricing is a more effective form of repression than are legally defined “speech laws.”
2. Eastern Europeans have an inferiority complex, re: the Western part of that continent/culture, and that needs to end, especially since the East is more culturally/spiritually healthy than is the West.  Even though I (justifiably) mock Saint Viktor of Orban, the fact is that, with all his faults, he is a much better spokesman for healthy European values than is anyone in Western Europe, ranging from civic patriot Marine Le Pen to race traitor Angela Merkel. 

Repressing Free Speech in the UK

From TOO.


We need to be thinking hard about an awful possibility —  a future without the internet and without outlets like the Occidental Observer. We desperately need to be looking at other ways of linking up with each other and if this pushes us away from our keyboards and out onto the streets it may be no bad thing.


Several points. I have been strongly advocating,. for many years, that European nationalists make the fight for free speech an integral part of their political platform, right up there with immigration or anything else.  I have addressed this directly to certain (low-level to mid-level) nationalists, raising the obvious point that it is difficult to speak out on issues fundamentally important to your movement (in Europe, real movements) if honest discussion of the topic is illegal (*)

I got a “yeah, yeah…you Yanks don’t understand that Europe never had a history of free speech,” as if that means anything. Hey, guys, Europe never had a history of mass Third World migration either, but you got it now. Change with the times….

It’s good that the author of this piece is looking ahead, asserting that contingency plans need to be put in place in the event of total Internet censorship. That’s a good idea, but I doubt the “movement” (with scare quotes) is listening.

The part about “may be no bad thing” is something I agree with as well. The Internet is a net (no pun intended) good, but it has costs as well as benefits. Too many people think posting and commenting is “activism,” we are fragmented and cut off from the real world, where the race crisis is happening. Our loss of genetic interests is taking place “out onto the streets,” not in Cyberspace, and, eventually, it is out onto those streets that we must go.

*With all of this, as I’ve said elsewhere, in many ways, Europeans have more freedom than American in expressing dissident views, given that American social pricing represses expression more than does on-the books laws. With laws, you at least have at least an approximate idea where you stand (although such laws can be vague and inconsistently enforced based on who? whom? questions). However, Americans constantly self-censor themselves, as any comment, even if uttered with a completely inoffensive and apolitical intent, can be construed as “bigotry” and cause all sorts of pointing and sputtering.