The old phrase “chilling effect” belonged to a slower age, when Silence could still be blamed on hesitation before the state. What unfolds now is not hesitation but exhaustion: Words no longer persuade, debate no longer binds, & only the body... convulsing on stage or bleeding in Silence... still carries meaning.
Kirk & Zarutska’s murders were not warnings that free speech might be threatened; they were proof that it has already been abandoned, that the American republic now builds its myths out of corpses because no living symbols remain. Insurance ledgers & armoured convoys are not safeguards of liberty but receipts of its bankruptcy, proof that every word must now be bought with Capital & steel.
Speech is not chilled; it has been terminally consumed... & so America feeds on its dead because it has nothing else left to believe in.
Thanks for sharing yours. This is a great piece for reference and context.
I’m not big on any conception of positive
rights, but this could lay the groundwork for an argument that we don’t have equal protection under the law when the government does nothing to punish and recoup costs from bad actors deliberately trying to cast a chilling effect on speech.
Peter Brimelow is now being personally sued for 'fiscal misconduct' after VDARE was already destroyed by lawfare, which will likely push him into bankruptcy. "Equal protection" has been a joke for at least a decade.
When people made caricatures of Mahomet before there were any moslems here, no-one cared much. After the invading parasites became plentiful enough, they started doing violence on people who make such caricatures or were suspected of it.
Eventually, police in EU nations were directed to not protect aritsts, writers and so on from moslems being moslems.
And so now no-one is making caricatures of Mahomet.
The lesson is violence works if you're willing to pay the initial price and is willing and abkle to keep it up for long enough.
Eventually, the powers that rule will invite you to the table in return for you keeping your forces under some control.
Don't believe me? Then why does Britain have sharia courts? Why are Swedish courts allowing islamic jurisprudence to matter in cases of domestic violence, divorces and such when moslems are involved? Why is German police conducting raids and arrests against German saying moslems should assimilate into German culture, not try and change it?
Because violence works, and it always works best against people who will not or cannot or is unable to defend themselves.
Just look at how the left and moslems do it: always against the defense-less, always in greater numbers the way rats can take down cats and dogs, or how lice and tics and leeches can bleed greater animals dry.
Well for some reason I don't see American Right employing it, so what's all their rhetorics of 2nd amendment and "stand my ground" are worth?
Americans have been preaching for the rest of their world that everybody are wimps who can't protect themselves, but as soon as Evil came to their own home, it seems they're sheepishly hiding in prepper bunkers and gated communities instead of, you know, doing all that Punisher-like vigilante justice they've been glorifying for decades.
Founding fathers didn't have a bald talking head on Xitter singing them a lullaby. They were men of action, as well as pretty anyone else in that time.
I'm sorry that you (and the rest of my friends in US) have to live through this, but your civilization kinda brought this upon itself. Something-something karmic cashback for 20th century.
I've long noted exercise of rights in the United States is getting downright expensive. You have all these enumerated rights, made explicit in law. Yet, to 'get' your rights, you have to pay, pay, pay.
Accused of a single crime? The cost of legal defense will amount to the price of your home. To stay outta jail, ya gotta become homeless.
You want to run a business? You will be thousands in the hole before you start building your business, all monies paid to gubbamint/insurance/medical for you to exercise your right to make a living.
You want to drive on the roads or fly a plane or own a boat and trailer? Pay up.
The insurance companies, the lawyers and legislatures have evolved and crafted a fascistic grift-machine on a scale unimaginable at any other time in History. It bleeds us dry just as endless taxation bleeds us dry.
I, for one, am sick of this niggling constant fear of 'being sued.' Fuck the lawyers. Shoot them; that herd needs culling.
Notably, when the Left protested against Israeli war-crimes in Gaza, the authorities suddenly found the wherewithal to crack down on them, in stark contrast to Antifa shenanigans and George Floyd riots. Thus, they are essentially agents of the state, committing violence on its behalf. Truly a case of anarcho-tyranny, the worst form of government.
I agree that violence and the threat of violence can have chilling effect on our freedom, including free speech, but why do we allow a small group of bad actors (i.e. Antifa, BLM, anti-ICE protestors, etc.) take away our freedom with their violent behavior? Is it because we are afraid that if we meet their violence with superior force, such as deployment of the National Guard, that we will confirm their labeling us as Nazi, Fascist, Racist, etc.? I’m old enough to remember the Kent State Shootings (Wikipedia refers to as the Kent State Massacre) in 1970 when the National Guard shot and killed four and wounding nine students during a protest of the Vietnam War on the Kent State campus. I think the Kent State Shootings had a chilling effect on our government’s willingness to meet violent protests/riots with force. Consequently, the violence is rewarded and will continue until it is stopped by superior force.
Having said that, I believe that the “left-wing” is trying to provoke such a response by the “right-wing.” In a recent article by Axios, a House Democrat said, “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough… [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and public.” Of course, when the Dem leadership dehumanizes the “right-wing” by constantly calling the “right-wing” Nazis, Fascists, Racists, etc., then what wouldn’t their base call for blood in the streets?
That’s the question, isn’t it? Why do we allow a small group to take away our freedom with their violent behavior? We (the citizenry) don’t stop it personally because we rightly expect our government to stop it. The government has the power to stop it. But the government doesn’t stop it. Why doesn’t it? If the purpose of a system is what it does… this line of thought always leads me to dark places.
I just took the $3.3M from Elon's security budget and divided by 10 and 100. There's no occult numerology intended here. Perhaps there's symbology in Elon's budget, though? I confess that *totally* went over my head until you pointed it out. Elon does seem to use a lot of occult symbolism, though (Tesla logo etc). Huh.
So, all the insurance and security costs, personal risk, death threats, sacrifice of a normal life, etc. all to just try and talk to the other side…and they killed him anyways…..welp….
Thank you for this article, Pater, and thank you for staying "on brand" with an appropriately woeful message. That part probably wasn't difficult, given the circumstances. Whatever you feel you may have lacked in rhetorical heft, you more than accounted for in relevance and erudition. Again, very "on brand."
It's not at all clear to me where we go from here- it seems we must either allow the wicked to prevail (an intolerable thought) or take harsh and cruel actions, a thought hardly less abominable. I've thought for a while that the freedoms we've long enjoyed as a nation and a people always rested on a certain level of virtue and shared cultural understanding. In times past, our ancestors certainly disagreed with one another, often as violently as now, but certain taboos still restrained them from the kind of actions that made those freedoms impossible. That virtue and that shared cultural premise have both been wickedly eroded.
I thought the uni overreacted in terms of security but maybe not. They did pay for it all and students did behave like spoiled brats but no one was hurt and she got to deliver her talk.
For a similar reason, the best economic policy for poor high-crime neighborhoods in the USA is lots of police and hard-nosed prosecutors backed by stern judges. All of American society from bottom to top is paying a huge cost caused by the lack of basic security and order.
With the Milo example, universities should be charged for the costs. They're responsible for creating a safe environment for students. They allow violent people on their little campus fiefdom for the same ultimate reasons they let criminals run wild when they have control over police, prosecutors and judges. Shifting the liability will have massive societal impact.
The old phrase “chilling effect” belonged to a slower age, when Silence could still be blamed on hesitation before the state. What unfolds now is not hesitation but exhaustion: Words no longer persuade, debate no longer binds, & only the body... convulsing on stage or bleeding in Silence... still carries meaning.
Kirk & Zarutska’s murders were not warnings that free speech might be threatened; they were proof that it has already been abandoned, that the American republic now builds its myths out of corpses because no living symbols remain. Insurance ledgers & armoured convoys are not safeguards of liberty but receipts of its bankruptcy, proof that every word must now be bought with Capital & steel.
Speech is not chilled; it has been terminally consumed... & so America feeds on its dead because it has nothing else left to believe in.
> by a habitual (and mentally unstable) criminal
Well you already can't say that, doesn't sound like a free spech lol
We all mourn, grieve, and react in our own ways.
Thanks for sharing yours. This is a great piece for reference and context.
I’m not big on any conception of positive
rights, but this could lay the groundwork for an argument that we don’t have equal protection under the law when the government does nothing to punish and recoup costs from bad actors deliberately trying to cast a chilling effect on speech.
Peter Brimelow is now being personally sued for 'fiscal misconduct' after VDARE was already destroyed by lawfare, which will likely push him into bankruptcy. "Equal protection" has been a joke for at least a decade.
When people made caricatures of Mahomet before there were any moslems here, no-one cared much. After the invading parasites became plentiful enough, they started doing violence on people who make such caricatures or were suspected of it.
Eventually, police in EU nations were directed to not protect aritsts, writers and so on from moslems being moslems.
And so now no-one is making caricatures of Mahomet.
The lesson is violence works if you're willing to pay the initial price and is willing and abkle to keep it up for long enough.
Eventually, the powers that rule will invite you to the table in return for you keeping your forces under some control.
Don't believe me? Then why does Britain have sharia courts? Why are Swedish courts allowing islamic jurisprudence to matter in cases of domestic violence, divorces and such when moslems are involved? Why is German police conducting raids and arrests against German saying moslems should assimilate into German culture, not try and change it?
Because violence works, and it always works best against people who will not or cannot or is unable to defend themselves.
Just look at how the left and moslems do it: always against the defense-less, always in greater numbers the way rats can take down cats and dogs, or how lice and tics and leeches can bleed greater animals dry.
The lesson ought not need much contemplation.
> Because violence works
Well for some reason I don't see American Right employing it, so what's all their rhetorics of 2nd amendment and "stand my ground" are worth?
Americans have been preaching for the rest of their world that everybody are wimps who can't protect themselves, but as soon as Evil came to their own home, it seems they're sheepishly hiding in prepper bunkers and gated communities instead of, you know, doing all that Punisher-like vigilante justice they've been glorifying for decades.
You're not wrong. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the Founding Fathers would have already rebelled, long ago.
Founding fathers didn't have a bald talking head on Xitter singing them a lullaby. They were men of action, as well as pretty anyone else in that time.
I'm sorry that you (and the rest of my friends in US) have to live through this, but your civilization kinda brought this upon itself. Something-something karmic cashback for 20th century.
We don't have it nice either.
Do you remember comulsory/elementary school? That guy who everyone knew was dangerous, yet no-one had ever seen him in a real fight?
Multiply it to the level of a state and a culture, and there you have it.
Eventually, when coasting on an undeserved rep and skewed artificial self-image, you run into someone who's the real deal.
I'm hoping the Americans choose to live up their self-image instead of shrinking and shirking away from it.
The entire western world has been like this on the topic of HBD, and for much longer.
I've long noted exercise of rights in the United States is getting downright expensive. You have all these enumerated rights, made explicit in law. Yet, to 'get' your rights, you have to pay, pay, pay.
Accused of a single crime? The cost of legal defense will amount to the price of your home. To stay outta jail, ya gotta become homeless.
You want to run a business? You will be thousands in the hole before you start building your business, all monies paid to gubbamint/insurance/medical for you to exercise your right to make a living.
You want to drive on the roads or fly a plane or own a boat and trailer? Pay up.
The insurance companies, the lawyers and legislatures have evolved and crafted a fascistic grift-machine on a scale unimaginable at any other time in History. It bleeds us dry just as endless taxation bleeds us dry.
I, for one, am sick of this niggling constant fear of 'being sued.' Fuck the lawyers. Shoot them; that herd needs culling.
The political violence has only just begun if history is any guide. And you're right in that it is indeed very chilling.
Notably, when the Left protested against Israeli war-crimes in Gaza, the authorities suddenly found the wherewithal to crack down on them, in stark contrast to Antifa shenanigans and George Floyd riots. Thus, they are essentially agents of the state, committing violence on its behalf. Truly a case of anarcho-tyranny, the worst form of government.
> Notably, when the Left protested against Israeli war-crimes in Gaza, the authorities suddenly found the wherewithal to crack down on them,
For the most part, they didn't.
From what I gathered they did, at least in comparison to other events.
I believe they generally just did the same catch and release that they always do with antifa.
I agree that violence and the threat of violence can have chilling effect on our freedom, including free speech, but why do we allow a small group of bad actors (i.e. Antifa, BLM, anti-ICE protestors, etc.) take away our freedom with their violent behavior? Is it because we are afraid that if we meet their violence with superior force, such as deployment of the National Guard, that we will confirm their labeling us as Nazi, Fascist, Racist, etc.? I’m old enough to remember the Kent State Shootings (Wikipedia refers to as the Kent State Massacre) in 1970 when the National Guard shot and killed four and wounding nine students during a protest of the Vietnam War on the Kent State campus. I think the Kent State Shootings had a chilling effect on our government’s willingness to meet violent protests/riots with force. Consequently, the violence is rewarded and will continue until it is stopped by superior force.
Having said that, I believe that the “left-wing” is trying to provoke such a response by the “right-wing.” In a recent article by Axios, a House Democrat said, “Our own base is telling us that what we’re doing is not good enough… [that] there needs to be blood to grab the attention of the press and public.” Of course, when the Dem leadership dehumanizes the “right-wing” by constantly calling the “right-wing” Nazis, Fascists, Racists, etc., then what wouldn’t their base call for blood in the streets?
That’s the question, isn’t it? Why do we allow a small group to take away our freedom with their violent behavior? We (the citizenry) don’t stop it personally because we rightly expect our government to stop it. The government has the power to stop it. But the government doesn’t stop it. Why doesn’t it? If the purpose of a system is what it does… this line of thought always leads me to dark places.
The first duty of the State is security. To fail in its provision is a wholesale abdication of legitimacy.
Who among us indeed could afford $3.3M, or $330,000, $33,000, or even just $33? What strange numbers you use. Perhaps it is merely a coincidence.
I just took the $3.3M from Elon's security budget and divided by 10 and 100. There's no occult numerology intended here. Perhaps there's symbology in Elon's budget, though? I confess that *totally* went over my head until you pointed it out. Elon does seem to use a lot of occult symbolism, though (Tesla logo etc). Huh.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if there was symbology in Elon's budget. Or possibly more likely just in the reporting of his budget.
So, all the insurance and security costs, personal risk, death threats, sacrifice of a normal life, etc. all to just try and talk to the other side…and they killed him anyways…..welp….
Thank you for this article, Pater, and thank you for staying "on brand" with an appropriately woeful message. That part probably wasn't difficult, given the circumstances. Whatever you feel you may have lacked in rhetorical heft, you more than accounted for in relevance and erudition. Again, very "on brand."
It's not at all clear to me where we go from here- it seems we must either allow the wicked to prevail (an intolerable thought) or take harsh and cruel actions, a thought hardly less abominable. I've thought for a while that the freedoms we've long enjoyed as a nation and a people always rested on a certain level of virtue and shared cultural understanding. In times past, our ancestors certainly disagreed with one another, often as violently as now, but certain taboos still restrained them from the kind of actions that made those freedoms impossible. That virtue and that shared cultural premise have both been wickedly eroded.
I invited Frances Widdowson to my campus
I thought the uni overreacted in terms of security but maybe not. They did pay for it all and students did behave like spoiled brats but no one was hurt and she got to deliver her talk.
Unbelievable.
For a similar reason, the best economic policy for poor high-crime neighborhoods in the USA is lots of police and hard-nosed prosecutors backed by stern judges. All of American society from bottom to top is paying a huge cost caused by the lack of basic security and order.
With the Milo example, universities should be charged for the costs. They're responsible for creating a safe environment for students. They allow violent people on their little campus fiefdom for the same ultimate reasons they let criminals run wild when they have control over police, prosecutors and judges. Shifting the liability will have massive societal impact.
They need to feel some fear. https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/a-warning-to-the-blue-sky-woketards
Someone needs to buy that castle that VDARE attempted to use to host conferences.