Mob rule does not recognize freedom of speech

Even the smallest candle can banish darkness.  This is why the forces of darkness cannot tolerate a peaceful meeting of race-realists.  Last year, these cowardly terrorists, whose “activism” involved threatening the lives of hotel employees, succeeded in reducing the scale of the American Renaissance conference.  This blog is a direct result of that setback.  This year, their efforts will only amount to some minor inconveniences.  The conference will take place.
So desperate are the hate-mongers that no laws of morality or civility hold them back; given the chance, they would gladly choose violence to accomplish their goals.  Human life and liberty mean nothing to them as they are cut from the same cloth as Stalin and Mao.  Thus it is no surprise that the acting mayor of Charlotte, Chris D’Angelo Cannon, publicly urged hotels the refuse Amren’s business and to cancel their prior contract.  Since Cannon is mayor and a city council member, anything he says publicly is understood to be the voice of government.  The first amendment is supposed to protect us from such intrusions.
While it is true that hotels may choose to ignore the mayor’s wishes, they are surely aware that doing so might have repercussions at some later date.  Council of Conservative Citizens writer Kyle Rogers correctly writes:

He abused the office of mayor by using it to bully a local Sheraton Hotel into canceling a reservation by American Renaissance. An anti-democratic tactic usually reserved for dictators like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
Cannon portrays himself as some sort of hero for black people, for getting the Sheraton to cancel. He says white people should not be able to organize and speak about race in Charlotte. He shows EXTREME hypocrisy when it comes to black people. He is a life member of the NAACP. He belonged to an all black fraternity in college. He is a member of the Charlotte Black Political Caucus, and the National Black Caucus of Local Elected Officials.

I posed the question, “is this not a violation of our first amendment?” to a friend today.  His response was that, if his behavior is unacceptable, then people should vote him out of office.  There are a couple of flaws in this answer:
a)  We are supposed to be living in a republic, where the rule of law stands even in opposition to the majority.  Freedom of speech and assembly are rights that are supposed to be guaranteed us by the Constitution.  They should not be subject to elections.
b) Some 40% of Charlotte is black or Hispanic.  These groups, due to cultural norms and constant indoctrination, are incapable of supporting the rights of groups they perceive as contrary to their own interests.  While individual NAM’s may rise above this mentality, the vast majority of them can never do so.  Between leftist whites and NAM’s, there can never be a majority of voters willing to stand up for the first amendment by voting Cannon out of office.  Racial dynamics make fair elections practically impossible.
c) The vast majority of citizens do not distinguish between “right” and “wrong”.  Instead, years of brain-washing have conditioned them to see only “good” and “bad”.  In their eyes, “racist = bad”.  Any sort of reasoning stops at this point.  Murder, rape, exile or torture are all perfectly alright as long as the victim is a “racist”*.  In their simplistic minds, a “racist” has no rights.  At the root of this mentality is the fact that they have no in-depth grasp of what a “right” is.  As far as they’re concerned a “right” is a “good thing” and, therefore, a “racist” does not deserve it.
At last year’s truncated conference, there was talk of legal action against those who interfered with our plans and denied us a proper venue.  To the best of my knowledge, nothing came of it.  I hope that this time, even after a successful conference, we actually do pursue legal action against Mr. Cannon.  I am not a lawyer, but I would think that every single one of us (conference attendees) should be able to sue him for usurping our constitutional rights.
*I put “racist” in quotations because very few people, who use this word, have any idea what it actually means.  “A Conversation About Race” illustrates this very well.

This entry was posted in activism, freedom of speech issues, government/corporate discrimination against whites, shenanigans of the Left and of non-white activists. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Mob rule does not recognize freedom of speech

  1. Kiwiguy says:

    Great post, hope the conference goes well.

  2. Californian says:

    You know, when people ask why people are concerned about living in a country where Whites are a minority, one can point to this sort of thing. Freedom of speech seems to be a White thing. Hardly surprising when you look at Africa and start counting the number of states which have any respect for political dissent or due process.
    This also exposes the hypocrisy of the civil rights movement. Clearly, the NAACP does not recognize such civil rights as the First Amendment. Gets back to the point that the civil rights movement was something of a fraud from the get-go. It was not about expanding civil rights, but exploiting the rhetoric of equality to seize power.
    Same old story…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.