I have written the following to explain this resolution and why it is imperative that it is repealed with haste. The flow of this piece will follow the legislation segment by segment, statement by statement. Illinois SR 0794 declares, not organizations but, people who adhere to ideas as “terroristic” in nature. Naturally, they have no problem with allowing actual terrorists into the country. This sets a legal precedent for the establishment of the concept of “thought crime,” which again shows the Globalists to be enemies of the American Nation and a dangerous threat to our liberty.
Here is the link to the text of the resolution: ilga.gov/legislation/100/SR/10000SR0794.htm
Firstly, I condemn the idea that Nationalism has attempted to reinvent itself: “…their present-day rhetoric and terrorism conjure painful memories of our nation’s past.” I condemn this statement on the grounds that, as of the time of both the introduction and adoption of this resolution, no ties exist between Nationalist groups and terrorism. The events of August 12, 2017 have not been processed by the judicial system. Court cases are in the process of determining what exactly happened that day in and surrounding Lee Park (sic). Nationalist representatives have come forth declaring that their constitutionally protected rights, which were confirmed not only by the securing of a permit, but also by the injunction of a federal court confirming the rights to freedom of speech and assembly after the city pulled the permit less than a week before the event was to take place, were not properly protected by law enforcement. This failure to uphold the rights given to us by God and codified in the Constitution of this country produced the violence that took place in Lee Park. If anybody should be on trial for criminal acts, it should be the Mayor of Charlottesville, Charlottesville’s Chief of Police and the Governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliff, who didn’t just permit this human rights violation to take place but, on the contrary, actively commanded it in an effort to score political points. The blood of all those wounded and killed is on their hands. Illinois, I have found the terrorists you seek to decry with your legislation!
Secondly, ANTIFA representatives have declared that the police failed to protect them by pushing Nationalist activists out of Lee Park, into the streets in which ANTIFA and BLM were assembled. These criminal gangs with a well-known record of recent violence (unlike Nationalists) did not have a permit for public assembly. This fact increasingly calls the actions of law enforcement into question.
Thirdly, I would like to decry the same statement on the grounds that post-15th Amendment Nationalists have often condoned coercion, have employed it to political ends, and have been ruled by the judicial system to have engaged in political intimidation. Was Teddy Roosevelt a member of the KKK or terrorist groups? How about Abraham Lincoln, who believed in the deportation of freed slaves from the United States to Liberia?
To continue, they state that “neo-Nazism” (which is effectively a slur, not even the NSDAP called themselves “Nazis”) and “white nationalism” are “very real threats to social and racial progress.” They have created a moral imperative here, declaring that the views concerning race and social progress as espoused by such people as Richard Spencer are inherently “un-progressive.” I ask you, the reader, to ponder by what authority they can create such an imperative and enforce it by codification into law without seeking out the opinion of we the people, who do not see eye-to-eye with them on the creation of legislation labelling people who hold Nationalist ideas as terrorists? If they do so, they must condemn the President of this country as a terrorist, which, knowing the ridiculous nature of their ideas and ways of thinking, I have no doubt they wouldn’t hesitate to label him as such. We do not live in a 1984-esque totalitarianism, nor do we live in some sort of authoritarian country in which ideas can be declared to be “wrongthink,” but apparently they live in a different country where the usage of the powers belonging to a province to label those who disagree with them terrorists is perfectly normal. Such action is more befitting an African dictatorship or the People’s Republic of China, not the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Next they state that “white nationalism” has a history of intimidation and coercion. Can they deny that the actions of the state are manifestations of intimidation and coercion? The state emerges from anarchy as a social structure which holds a relative monopoly on coercion and intimidation through the centralization of authority into a governing body. This allows groups with different opinions to work within the socio-political structure in an environment without chaotic violence. If the Nationalists of the past ever employed coercion, it was to preserve this same civil society just as the state does. Therefore, it is not the mere use of intimidation and coercion to control people that is in question here. In being elected to office they have demonstrated an implict agreement with the use of these same tactics to enforce the policies of the state. Denunciation of the use of these tactics with the aim of the same goal, the preservation of civil society, makes them hypocrites who don’t deserve a soap box from which to shriek, much less a seat in any sort of governing body.
Now that we have established that coercion is a necessity in any civilized society, we must ask ourselves what kind of coercion is permissible, as well as what kind of coercion has no place in such a society. We make these considerations within a legal framework but, that isn’t a moral framework. Morality and Law are two separate concepts, both subject to interpretation. With this in mind, it is very simple to see what kind of coercion is acceptable and what kind isn’t: that which is acceptable is that which is made legal, and that which isn’t acceptable is made illegal. Before anybody reading this howls that Nationalism has always been in conflict with the heritage of this country, it should be pointed out that the United States was formed as a federation of European “states.” The first immigration laws of this federation excluded non-whites. The American people were completely content with this law then and likely still would be today.
They declare that “white nationalism” has “attempted to reinvent itself” as the Alt-Right. Their linguistic contortions here are interesting, specifically that “white nationalism” has attempted to reinvent itself. They imply that Nationalism is always pursued via the same means. Only labels change, not tactics. Again, these petty tyrants try to tie the modern manifestation of Nationalism back to previous manifestations which had less regard for the law and more concern with immediate results. Nationalism can, as all other political ideas, be pursued through different tactics, and those who “reinvented” Nationalism are not the same people who were responsible for maintaining the Nationalism that was typical of the 1870s, the 1920s, the 1960s or today. By extension, those who led Nationalism in these periods in our country’s history were not the Founding Fathers (funnily for the tyrants, all white men). “White Nationalism” is nothing less than American Nationalism.
For the next segment of the legislation, the reader should recall that America was founded as a European society. To think that our Nationalism conflicts with the original ideas that founded this country is absurd.
To conclude, for the last few statements made in this legislation, I would like to point out this inviolable law of human social dynamics: diversity + proximity = war. The anti-white Tyrants can enact any laws they wish, however, the fact of the matter is that the regressive society they wish to build is being ripped apart by conflict. This is due to the fact that we are different peoples with different histories, tendencies and interests that are far from superficial. Perhaps the People alledging that these differences are “merely skin deep” are themselves the most superficial among the Nations of the Earth? The only way our country can survive is if Heritage America takes the helm back from the collapsing “ascedant coalition” that cannot and will not sustain our way of life, nor keep this country stable, politically or economically.