The World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland is underway. The WEF and its chairman, Klaus Schwab, are easy targets for conservatives, who blame them for supposedly wanting to force us to eat bugs, take controversial vaccines, or pay taxes for their fanciful “no-carbon economy.” These may be serious issues, but whites would be better off if conservatives were as brave in opposing anti-white speech and mass immigration as they are about our right to eat cheeseburgers.
Still, the WEF shows us what the elites are willing to say openly. Presumably, if they have nefarious designs, they keep their worst aspects a secret. At the WEF, however, some Americans are very clear that they see this country and its tradition of free speech as a problem.
Brian Stelter, whose CNN show was canceled for low ratings, hosted a panel on the “Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation.” The word “disinformation” is especially inflammatory for race realists, but free speech is good for everyone. However, our position must not simply be that so-called “hate speech” should be allowed. The real issue is that the mainstream media spread disinformation about imaginary racial equality. If disinformation about race incites hate, it’s hurting whites, who suffer crime disproportionately at the hands of non-whites despite subsidizing them and giving them privileged status under the law. The real hate speech is in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on CNN and MSNBC every day — and it’s against whites.
Until very recently, Americans took free speech for granted. Since the 2016 election, some journalists have been eager to muzzle it. They have succeeded in getting many people whose views they dislike banned from social media. Now, they and their allies in Washington want to move on to undoing the First Amendment itself.
Mr. Stelter’s panel included Věra Jourová, vice president of the European Commission for Values and Transparency, who “coordinates work on inclusion and building a genuine Union of equality and diversity.” “Illegal hate speech, which you will have soon also in the US; I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law,” she said, laughing. Mr. Stelter said nothing. American conservatives mocked Mr. Stelter’s silence in the face of this call for censorship, though most have been quiet themselves about supporting censored outlets such as American Renaissance.
Arthur Gregg Sulzberger, publisher of the New York Times, complained about the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) to write news stories, “none of which is particularly verified (and) the origins of which are not particularly clear.” Left unspoken is that one of the main problems with AI is that unless it is deliberately blinded, it is usually too good at pattern recognition, thus telling the truth about racial realities that outlets such as the New York Times ignore. If AI accurately reports the facts, do we really need the New York Times at all? Mr. Sulzberger further argued that “bad information” must be crowded out with “good information,” but it’s the New York Times that went in 2019 from promoting the failed “Russiagate” hoax to the historically illiterate “1619 Project” in order to damage President Trump.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) is considered a “moderate.” He wasn’t on the disinformation panel, but was present at the WEF to complain about American free speech:
The problem that we have is the open press system and basically all the platforms. So if you’re able to have five platform [sic], social platforms, you can basically personify the extremes as somebody who is extremely right or extremely left, and it seems like that is the majority speaking.
Now he’s back in America arguing that he didn’t mean he wanted to stifle the “extremes.”
Some American conservatives may console themselves with the belief that the First Amendment will protect them from censorship, but the Constitution is no more than what five justices say it is. The Supreme Court will soon hear cases from Texas and Florida designed to prevent Big Tech from censoring speech. “The cases are part of a growing global battle over how to handle harmful speech online,” says the New York Times.”
Historically, the Supreme Court has not ruled that foreign treaties override Americans’ constitutional liberties, but that could change. Justice Sonia Sotomayor — a self-admitted “product of affirmative action” — thinks judges should consider foreign and international law in their rulings. If Critical Race Theory continues its march through the legal system, even Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-TX) more or less explicit call to abolish the First Amendment for white advocacy could pass constitutional muster in a left-leaning court.
America’s leaders are now looking enviously at Europe’s “hate speech” laws because they have been effective at silencing dissent. Fortunately, we still have free speech in the United States. Without it, government is just another gang of thugs.