In Defense of Graffiti

SovietMen, quoting Luisman’s blog, wrote:

The Internet giants are only the vanguard. In the meantime, the banks are already beginning to strike powerfully (Deutsche Bank wants to cancel all business relations with Trump). Those who don’t follow suit will only get an account in an obscure regional bank in ‘Hungary’s Pampas’, and the transfer costs will eat away most of the income. And if all the dissidents have been driven into Bitcoin, how long will Bitcoin be around? As a ‘maledict’, one who can no longer get jobs or work for political reasons, what are you left with? Molotov cocktail or collecting bottles? Are these the alternatives?

For sustenance, sex, shelter or speech, people do what they’ve got to do to get it. If you’re hungry enough, you’ll eat just about anything. Even the ugliest woman looks like a ten if you’re sexually deprived enough, a cardboard box is home if there are no other alternatives – and scribbling heresies on public surfaces seems like a good idea if all other venues have silenced you.

We have laws for a reason, and they were written within a certain context. At least here in Portland, the authorities don’t arrest people for living in cardboard boxes in public spaces, because the perception is that the homeless have no other viable options. Few of us would blame a starving person for stealing food, and only a heartless person would condemn a severely deformed man for hiring a prostitute.

Similarly, if The Establishment Left ever succeeds in silencing us from all online platforms, and renders it all but impossible to put out our own publications, then the original context of anti-graffiti laws would have changed to the point where there can be no moral objection to it. With no venue to express our views, we are “homeless.” Just as actual homeless people must improvise, so must we. “Speech” is practically useless unless others can hear it – and when I say “others,” I’m referring to those who don’t share our views. We have the right, even the duty, to proselytize.

We have the right to proselytize without fear of being cancelled, losing our jobs, our safety or our freedom. “Big Tech” has crossed the line from “private enterprise” to a quasi-governmental juggernaut. An unholy alliance of transnational corporations and governments that recognize no limitations on their power. The Constitution is nothing but a minor nuisance that can be overridden by legislative fiat. Government does the bidding of Big Tech, and Big Tech does the bidding of government.

Some might argue that we’ve already reached the point where all traditional venues of political expression have been cut off. It would depend on the individual and his circumstances. It’s as much a personal judgment as an objective assessment of reality on the ground:

Assuming the government is no longer confining us under the pretext of CCPVirus, will white, and men’s, advocacy groups be allowed to hold conferences without being shut down?

Will Gab be shut down, as Parler was before it?

Will BitChute (thanks, Diversity Chronicle) follow the example of YouTube, and carry out political purges?

Will government step in and try to destroy iPatriot and similar conservative social media sites, and will we be forced to use VPNs to access such sites?

Will Western governments continue to deny government employment to conservatives and white-advocates?

Will Western governments continue to blacklist right-wing activists, and deny them entry into their territories?

Will Communist mobs continue to terrorize our streets, as police stand idly by?

These are some of the issues I’ll be looking at in 2021.