Posted on August 13, 2019

Who Governs?

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, August 13, 2019

“Sovereign is he who decides the exception,” wrote political theorist Carl Schmitt. These days, there are many “exceptions” to the law. Sam Francis argued that “anarcho-tyranny” was the necessary result of multiculturalism: “We refuse to control real criminals (that’s the anarchy),” he wrote, “so we control the innocent (that’s the tyranny).”

There is more “anarchy” and “tyranny” every day.

Twenty to 30 million illegal immigrants are in the country. They aren’t “in the shadows;” they protest in public and go on television, even on taxpayer-subsidized networks. To them, the law is irrelevant.

Several cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” for illegals. Local police ignore “detainer” orders by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and release criminal illegals who go on to commit more crimes. California passed a law making the entire state a “sanctuary” and forbidding local cooperation with immigration authorities. “Sanctuaries” flout federal law.

In contrast, state and local efforts to limit immigration have mostly been thrown out by the courts. Local governments can ignore immigration law when it helps illegals; they can’t pass regulations to control them. The Orwellian reasoning is that if the federal government won’t enforce immigration laws, states and localities can’t either. Proposition 187, which would have denied many public services to illegals, passed when California was majority white. The courts gutted it, with predictable demographic and political consequences.

The Supreme Court threw out much of Arizona’s illegal-immigration control SB 1070 because it supposedly interfered with federal responsibilities. Later legal challenges weakened what was left.

In 2006, Hazleton, Pennsylvania passed a law imposing fines on landlords who rented to illegals. A federal judge threw out the law on the grounds that the federal government has sole authority to regulate immigration. He fined the city instead.

Political violence is common, but only one side pays the price. The Trump Justice Department has cracked down on “white nationalist” groups such as the Rise Above Movement at the behest of liberal journalists. Federal prosecutor Thomas Cullen is charging “white nationalists” under “anti-riot” statutes, to the cheers of the Washington Post. He ignores antifa groups that openly planned violence in Charlottesville. Elsewhere, leftists caught committing violent crimes—even on video—get minor penalties.

There were two mass shootings last weekend. One perp was probably a white nationalist; the other was an antifa activist. Both liberals and conservatives agree that the problem is “white supremacism.” Both have called for crackdowns on “white nationalists.” Congress could well pass “red flag” laws, which by their nature depend on subjective judgments about whether someone is “dangerous.” Earlier, the House of Representatives held a hearing with speakers calling for a “counter-insurgency” against white nationalism. Congressmen identified specific people, such as Faith Goldy, whom they wanted kicked off social media.

Clearly, there is no objective “rule of law.” So who rules? Journalists.

They are increasingly conscious of their power and argue openly for state repression of those with whom they disagree. An extraordinary article in the Washington Post argues that federal prosecutors should use RICO statues against white nationalists.

“The First Amendment is a major block in investigation and prosecution of a white supremacy group,” complained G. Robert Blakey, author of the RICO statute. Mr. Blakey notes ominously that RICO is “not a written law” but a “culture.” Mr. Blakey means a legal culture, but really it’s a media culture.

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy also wants to use our “very elastic federal laws targeting violent gang activity and other conspiracies” to destroy “white supremacism.”

The corporate media determine what is politically possible and what views are considered beyond the pale. The law is secondary to ideology.

For example, on July 20, Vice wrote that Ted Cruz’s proposal for antifa to be considered a domestic terror organization won’t work for two reasons. First, “antifa hasn’t killed people.” Second, “there’s no domestic terror designation system that would make this possible.” The article notes that “legal experts have warned that adjusting the law to allow for domestic terror organizations could open up the potential for the system to be abused to target protest groups—like antifa, or even Black Lives Matter.” Vice does not want its favored groups to be called “terror organizations.”

On August 6, the same author at Vice changed her tune. This time, there was a different message. “The gap in federal law [the lack of a domestic terrorism law] means that when self-radicalized Americans target undocumented immigrants shopping at Walmart, Jews gathered at their local synagogue for Saturday prayers, or black worshippers at a Bible study session,” said Tess Owen, “their actions are prosecuted as hate crimes, not terrorism.”

“If Congress were to make domestic terrorism a federal crime,” she writes, “prosecutors could go after would-be terrorists with the ‘material support statute,’ which currently criminalizes the act of plotting a terror attack in the name of, for example, white supremacy.”

She barely mentions “First Amendment issues.” The one criminal already convicted in the above cases, Dylann Roof, has been sentenced to death. What difference would a “terrorism” charge make?

A “domestic terrorism” law could potentially make it illegal to donate to groups such as American Renaissance if the government declared them “terrorist” organizations. In 2011, after Jared Loughner’s murders, an Arizona Counter Terrorism Center leaked a memo mistakenly linking American Renaissance to the killer. The center disavowed the memo, but today, the consequences would probably be far worse. If we were labeled “terrorists,” donations would be “material support.” This would not end violence; it would silence and intimidate peaceful white advocates.

During the George W. Bush administration, liberals worried that the “War on Terrorism” would restrict civil liberties. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar recently complained that Muslims were treated like “second-class citizens” without “our civil liberties” because “some people did something” (the September 11 attacks.) She was widely praised.

Now, however, many journalists want a “War on Terrorism.”

  • “Now is the time for a global war on white nationalist terrorism,” said Christopher Dickey at The Daily Beast. A “global” war? Which regimes would Mr. Dickey like us to change?
  • Time identified “glimmers of hope,” including proposed legislation “that would require DHS, the FBI and the Justice Department to address white supremacism and right-wing extremism, including training and information sharing.” Another “glimmer” was the “new push for domestic terrorism to be codified as a federal crime.”
  • An article in Big Think is entitled “Finally, white nationalists are being called terrorists. We Need This To Continue.” Author Derek Beres says the terrorist designation is necessary because it “pushes back at the chronic problem of American exceptionalism” and the “related idea” of “manifest destiny.” He explains that there is nothing unique about America or Americans, and “the reality is ‘we’ are no different from ‘them’.”

Unlike Muslims, who have the Council on American-Islamic Relations—and hundreds of allied leftist groups—whites have no one to protect their group interests or civil liberties. So what if people who have committed no crimes are caught up in a RICO investigation? If they are “racists,” who cares? They are just as guilty as any actual criminal.

Many journalists claim there is no such thing as white supremacist “self-radicalization.” A killer may act on his own, but he got his ideas from the internet. That’s why they want certain websites shut down. 8chan is the target now, but it won’t be the last one.

Is the danger only on the Right? In just the last few years, a left-wing activist shot Congressman Steve Scalise, and a left-wing neighbor attacked Senator Rand Paul. A mob recently gathered at the home of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, threatening violence. When the senator’s campaign posted a video, Twitter locked the campaign’s account. Perhaps as many as a dozen police officers have been killed in the name of Black Lives Matter. Why is there no corporate media soul-searching about radicalization and calls for beefed up RICO? Not surprisingly, only 26 percent of Republicans think the political climate is one in which they can be very comfortable expressing their political views.

Artists depict a blindfolded “Justice” because she is supposed to make no distinctions between people. Yet media power distorts the “rule of law.” A prosecutor or judge is a politician like a congressman or senator. Even senior judges are political appointees. There’s little political advantage in punishing the same old brown and black criminals. Ambitious prosecutors want “The Great White Defendant” with non-white victims. The late Tom Wolfe satirized this in The Bonfire of the Vanities, and it’s gotten worse since.

Despite the disproportionate amount of crime committed by blacks and Hispanics, lower gun crime than in the 1990s, and data showing most mass shooters are black, many Americans are convinced the country is under siege from violent white nationalists. Journalists take political positions, cooperate to push them, and want to use this phony issue to repress dissidents.

Prosecutors will use a “domestic terrorism” law or expanded RICO powers very selectively, just as they use “anti-rioting” laws. Prosecutors want media praise and they know the press won’t worry about the civil liberties of “white nationalists.”

Elizabeth Warren has already promised she would direct her Justice Department to “go after white nationalists with full prosecution.” The corporate media write the rules; the law follows.

The result is double standards.

It is because politics is about who, not what. Most of those with media platforms have a story about Good Guys and Bad Guys, and they have decided we’re the bad guys.

White advocates still have legal rights and they should use them aggressively, but it’s naïve to think courts will be fair. The most important thing we can do to defend our rights is to support alternative media and expose corporate media.

There is hope: A new poll shows that Americans think the media have a more negative effect on the country than corporations, Congress, or any other listed institution. Just ten percent of Republicans think the media have a positive impact on the country, according to the Pew Research Center.

Liberals are good at deplatforming people they don’t like, but repression has limits. Many Americans despise our media rulers. They obey out of fear, so our job is to embolden them. We need to help activists survive attacks. We need to build communities. We must expose media bias—a never-ending job.

Corporate media power is broad but thin. We can weaken it. With persistence and courage, we can break it.