By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to

Totalitarian Liberalism, Multicultural Fascism By Richard Miller

     How best to describe the states of the modern West, which like some zombie-infection works to destroy everything that traditional society fought, bled and died to create? Dissent Right figure Greg Johnson has been arrested attending the Scandza Forum conference on human biodiversity, presumably for being a “terrorist,” even though perhaps no-one from the Dissent Right has fallen over themselves to reject the violence option:

“Greg Johnson was scheduled to speak at the Scandza Forum conference in Oslo, Norway today. Over the last few days, the Norwegian antifa were on a social media campaign against Scandza and Greg in particular, claiming that he supports terrorism and was therefore a threat — ludicrous given Greg’s many diatribes against terrorism. Regardless, word about this apparently got to the Norwegian authorities, and he was arrested this morning before the conference on national security grounds. The police said that Greg was being deported, but he’s been held incommunicado since then, so we don’t know where he is now. Undoubtedly they will simply detain him until they can get him on a flight out of the country. This is the same routine that Jared Taylor and other thought criminals have been through before. The conference itself is proceeding and none of the other speakers or attendees were detained. Below is a statement that Greg wrote in connection with the accusations against him before his arrest.

Greg Johnson Responds to the Complaint
In connection with Scandza Forum’s conference in Oslo on November 2, 2019, Filter Nyheter is agitating to stop my entry to Norway. They have therefore put together a campaign of lies against me which they are now spreading on social media. Filter Nyheter suggests that I promote violence as a political tool. The reality is quite the opposite. I have always consistently condemned violence and terrorism. In fact, I do not know of anyone else who has so clearly and unequivocally spoken against Right-wing terrorism as me. At the Scandza Forum in Sweden earlier this year, I gave an entire speech in which I addressed the evils of terror, and I have written numerous articles opposing it as well. I have never supported Breivik’s crimes. These stories take quotes from my writings out of context, from an article in which I in no way defended Breivik’s crimes. In fact, it was a text that discussed Breivik’s own rationale for the crime. At the moment, we are therefore looking at the possibility of taking legal action against Filter Nyheter.

     Johnson then goes on to quote all his speeches and writings condemning Right wing terrorism. Clearly, he is no terrorist, but the system will define anything contrary to globalist cosmopolitan ideologies as terrorism now, so that their infrastructure of totalitarian laws can be swung into action to splatter any opponents.

    The Washington Post, has behind a paywall an article basically wanting America’s first amendment to be abolished, as such:

“When I was a journalist, I loved Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s assertion that the Constitution and the First Amendment are not just about protecting “free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.” … I think it’s time to consider these statutes. The modern standard of dangerous speech comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and holds that speech that directly incites “imminent lawless action” or is likely to do so can be restricted. Domestic terrorists such as Dylann Roof and Omar Mateenand the El Paso shooter were consumers of hate speech. Speech doesn’t pull the trigger, but does anyone seriously doubt that such hateful speech creates a climate where such acts are more likely? Let the debate begin. Hate speech has a less violent, but nearly as damaging, impact in another way: It diminishes tolerance. It enables discrimination. Isn’t that, by definition, speech that undermines the values that the First Amendment was designed to protect: fairness, due process, equality before the law? Why shouldn’t the states experiment with their own version of hate speech statutes to penalize speech that deliberately insults people based on religion, race, ethnicity and sexual orientation?”

     Yes, but it is the Left who will be defining “hate speech,” as they did throughout the West. Before you know it, America is just like Australia, with no freedom of speech much at all, because free speech intrinsically involves elements of offence; if it does not offend, then it does nothing in the rough and tumble of politics! This was the only reference I could find, not a great site, but we make do with what we have:



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Friday, 29 May 2020
If you'd like to register, please fill in the username, password and name fields.