A New Constitutional Amendment

And other news.

In response to the Negro lunacy described here - an “anti-racism” constitutional amendment that would require a radical interpretation of the First Amendment, making that leading article of the Bill of Rights meaningless - I propose my own constitutional amendment.

This new constitutional amendment would have two parts.  First, it would make my proposal of the Political Opinion Protection Act (POPA) part of the US Constitution. Hence (clause one):

Political and social opinions, beliefs, and ideologies, and the adherence and promotion thereof, now define a protected class of individuals, against whom business and institutions, private or public, cannot discriminate in employment or in the provision of services.  The only exception is where the opinions, beliefs, and ideologies are directly and overtly incompatible with the core mission of the business or institution.

That can be worded better by constitutional lawyers so as to optimally clarify the "core mission" exception and to be optimally compatible with clause two (below). Clause one would extend the First Amendment from the purely governmental public sphere to the private sphere, essentially moving in the opposite direction of the aforementioned Negro lunacy.  If you read the initial POPA post, linked to above, you will see a careful definition of what is, and what is not, a "core mission." The balance between free speech and free association needs to be carefully maintained.

To further move in this opposite of the Negro lunacy, and to clarify issues relating POPA to freedom of association, the second part (clause two) of the new constitutional amendment would focus on extending freedom of association, just as the first part extends freedom of speech.

Thus (clause two):

No law shall be enforced that restricts freedom of association in any way whatsoever, with the exception that freedom of association will not be construed to violate the free speech rights as defined in clause one, with the "core mission" exceptions of clause one, which are consistent with clause two, clearly defined.

Again, it can be better worded; I am here merely expressing the underlying objective. Thus, the two clauses need to be carefully defined so that there is absolute freedom of speech except where that interferes with a narrowly defined area of freedom of association, and that there is absolute freedom of association except where such violates free speech, the proviso being that there are narrow exceptions where freedom of association trumps free speech.

In this sense, freedom of association is at a higher level than free speech, but only in narrowly defined circumstances where the freedom of association is an inherent property ("core mission") of the entity that asserts the primacy of free association.  Again, this all needs to be formulated in such a way that the Left does not use each clause to violate the other.  The two clauses need to be complimentary, not antagonistic.

The main objective is broaden and extend freedom, striking a balance between expanded freedom of speech and expanded freedom of association, and negotiating the boundaries where the two expanded freedoms may come into conflict. In a so-called “democracy," freedom should be protected and, when in doubt, expanded. Totalitarian thought control is incompatible with the West, which is why it is so popular among those whose backgrounds are outside of our civilization.

It needs to be said as well that the action of Jack Dorsey in supporting the Negro lunacy is a perfect example of “woke capital” and its corrosive power in modern society.  In my opinion, according to my standards, Dorsey is a monster.

Other news:

Re-read this. Let’s consider the relatively recent (past 25 years or so) history of Jews in Der Movement:

• Promoting a multiracial “White separatist state” that not only includes Jews, but also “Asians and others” – essentially all groups except for Blacks. The Jewish individual who promoted this now says we should not have any sort of “White state” - we must now also include “conservative Blacks.”
• The “racial status quo” of around 15 years ago was the best we can have and we should support the racial status quo of a multiracial society, including affirmative action and other anti-White policies.
• Racial preservationism for its own sake is insane. We can only preserve groups based on a hierarchy of traits.
• We should support HBD instead of kinship-based racialism, concentrated on “high IQ” that privileges Jews and Asians.
• Mass alien immigration, particularly Hispanic immigration, is not a problem; indeed, we should welcome Hispanic immigration.
• Northeast Asians are genetically more similar to Europeans than to Southeast Asians - an absurd falsehood already disproven by population genetics at the time it was written.
• I also suspect that the person who told Derbyshire that Amren conference attendees are “latrine flies” was also a Jew (likely one of the above), although unfortunately I have no evidence to support that hypothesis.
• And now we have the "Furlong" mendacity discussed here recently.

Jews have an instinctive tropism toward always supporting diversity and multiracialism, even within the scope of Far Right activism.  Jews have an instinctive aversion to homogeneous White societies; while for us a White ethnostate is a dream, for Jews it is a nightmare.  The reason is obvious – Jews are a different people with different interests, compared to European-derived Whites. Jews have a “racial memory” of “persecution” in all-White societies and they will never be comfortable in such societies and they will always attempt to subvert White homogeneity. Should such a people, with a millennia-long history of nation-wrecking, be given free access to the “movement?”

I essentially agree with this analysis, a mostly astute “take-down” of Johnson’s moronic petty nationalism; however, if the author of this piece is the same idiot shilling for “civic nationalism” and “high IQ immigration” on Twitter, then he’s just as bad as Johnson is.