Punishing beliefs

“The complaint, in spare language, forcefully makes the case that ideology and actions are inextricable.”

A 17 June article in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency contains a story on the lawsuit Sines v. Kessler, stemming from the government-induced public disorder that occurred in Charlottesville, Virginia, on 11-12 August 2017. The above quote is from that story, which focuses mainly on chief counsel for the plaintiffs, Roberta Kaplan, who is a Jew lesbian.

Kaplan’s 112-page complaint says: “Defendants brought with them to Charlottesville the imagery of the Holocaust, of slavery, of Jim Crow and of fascism,” it says.

By now you should understand that to Kaplan and her ilk what actually happened in Charlottesville is not as important as why it happened. In short, what Kaplan, et al, are saying is that those who came to the Unite the Right rally to defend the Lee Statue were guilty of “wrongthink.” Both eyewitnesses and hours of video show that leftist protestors and city and state officials did everything possible to shut down attendees’ rights to free speech and public assembly. And the did so by putting hundreds of lives in danger.

So if you have to lie about what actually happened on the ground, then you malign your opponents with accusations of things–racism, anti-Semitism, fascism, historical revisionism–that are not illegal but are meant to destroy a person’s reputation and their ability to make a living.

This is not only morally wrong and with no legal basis, but it is sheer evil based on a deep hatred of those of us who were there. A legal system that will allow overt politicization of an issue in the court system (where justice is supposed to know no ideology) is clearly outside the law as our Founders understood it. Such belongs more to the Bolsheviks in the USSR.

What we see taking place is an all-out assault on Whites for the crime of “nationalism.” This means any White who dares stand up and defend himself and his family will be branded a “nationalist” and then condemned by the epithets used above. This is bad enough in and of itself. However, when such accusations of “wrongthink” become, in part, the basis of a legal suit, then we are treading perilous ground.

Michael Hill