So-called “democratic” politics is pretty boring these days, with cookie-cutter candidates and elections and hundreds of taboo issues of core significance that cannot be discussed. “If voting could change anything, they’d make it illegal.”
So I was startled to see a politically incorrect, pro-life, anti-Islamic TV ad during the recent primary campaign. The commercial featured a political unknown named Gary Boisclair, whom Anders Breivik would undoubtedly categorize as a “cultural conservative.”
What grabbed my attention, however, was not the content of the ad itself, but rather the TV station’s conspicuous warnings preceding and following it. I’d never seen such a thing.
Local TV stations, it turned out, had squealed like stuck pigs when they discovered to their surprise that they could not censor Boisclair’s ads (their mechanical response to politically incorrect speech), but were actually compelled to air them as long as the candidate paid them a stiff fee. But the Devil must be given his due. They’d much rather have foregone the money than run the ads.
Truly, they thought, the world has been turned upside down. Boisclair’s messages would be seen willy-nilly by tens of thousands of local TV viewers . . . the public at large!
The sanctimonious gatekeepers could hardly believe it.
The “Offensive” Ads
The airtime was purchased by a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL, the Democratic Party affiliate in Minnesota) candidate for Congress in the August 14 primary.
His opponent, black Muslim incumbent Keith Ellison, represents Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District, a one-party enclave consisting of Minneapolis and its inner ring suburbs. The district has not sent a Republican to Congress since 1962.
Ellison is the first black congressman from Minnesota, and the first Muslim elected to Congress from any state.
Boisclair ran as a Democrat because “Democrats know how to fight for the little guy, and I’m fighting for the littlest guy” (unborn babies).
His three 30-second TV spots, without, unfortunately, the stations’ disclaimers (because they were the ads’ most striking features), can be viewed on Boisclair’s website.
From top to bottom on his web page they are:
1. An anti-abortion ad.
2. An anti-Islamic ad. “We did not pick this fight,” Boisclair told a reporter. “Islam’s war against Christianity and human liberty has raged against us for 1,400 years. We are merely responding with the truth.”
About this spot Boisclair wrote: “We grant you permission to rip this video and post it in any format or location you choose. Be forewarned: the cowards and hypocrites at Youtube have already pulled this video down.”
YouTube is a subsidiary of Jewish New Media giant Google; censorship of videos is carried out with guidance from the ADL.
Whites must develop the unaccustomed habit of thinking several moves ahead. Censorship of YouTube will intensify imperceptibly over time until non-PC content disappears completely: no more Golden Dawn videos, no more Saga.
Since my article on Swedish WN singer Saga appeared last year, her lead video featured there, “Land of Ice,” has been flagged as “potentially offensive or inappropriate” (it wasn’t when I wrote the piece). After reading the warning, would-be viewers must now click a second time in order to see it. Not total censorship, but closer to it than one year ago. No doubt many potential viewers are screened out by this simple action.
Jews have a longer time horizon than whites, so the transition will be invisible to most Gentiles, including most White Nationalists. Psychologically, the process will seem “slow,” though in the context of historical change and the consolidation of social power it is really extremely rapid. A parallel is the transformation of white countries everywhere into non-white countries.
Presumably the anti-Ellison ad is deemed incompatible with American Jewish interests now.
3. The final ad emphasized three themes: liberty (anti-socialism), the Islamic threat (in the form of Sharia law now being mainstreamed into “Western” culture), and pro-life (anti-abortion). This is the commercial I happened to see on television.
Incumbent Keith Ellison
Ellison, an attorney by profession, came from a well-to-do family in Detroit. He was one of five children, and has four of his own, exemplifying high non-white birth rates.
Whites worldwide have less than two children per couple, well below replacement level. The consequence is demographic collapse.
Ellison adopted Sunni Islam primarily for racial, ideological and social rather than religious reasons:
I can’t claim that I was the most observant Catholic at the time [of my conversion]. I had begun to really look around and ask myself about the social circumstances of the country, issues of justice, issues of change. When I looked at my spiritual life, and I looked at what might inform social change, justice in society . . . I found Islam.
Even before his initial election to Congress in 2006 prominent Jewish DFLers supported Ellison, including local fundraisers Samuel and Sylvia Kaplan and State Representative Phyllis Kahn (D.-Minneapolis).
In truth, Jews seem to run a kind of “good cop-bad cop” routine on Ellison, with national Jews occasionally kicking sand in his face to remind him who’s boss without seriously damaging his career, and local Jewish “friends” and power brokers reassuring him, funding him, promoting his campaigns, and rendering him acceptable to local elites and voters.
During the 2006 election Ellison penned a letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas denouncing the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan as anti-Semitic. He said, “any kind of discrimination and hate are wrong. This has always been my position.”
Except, of course, when it comes to discrimination against whites. Ellison advocates that whites be forced to pay reparations for slavery.
My ancestors were in Norway and Sweden at the time, where slavery was never practiced. Two of my relatives who were in the US fought in the Union Army—one dying at the age of 30 at the Battle of Shiloh so that Ellison’s ancestors could be free. But whites everywhere in the world are collectively guilty, racially, for everything . . . forever.
In Ellison’s lexicon, this is known as “anti-racism,” “anti-hate,” and “anti-discrimination.”
Despite the fact that “Race does not exist.”
Ah, to have your cake and eat it too!
The Fruits of Activism
Boisclair’s ads are the result of well-organized activism by a hated and discriminated against out-group—pro-life Christians.
A small group of activists worked hard to discover, understand, and utilize arcane laws to get their message on local airwaves in our ostensibly “free market,” “free speech”-loving country.
What they did is no different from what Jews and the Left have always done.
Administrative rules promulgated by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) forbid television stations from censoring federal campaign ads. Although FCC-licensed TV stations can ordinarily reject ads due to alleged “graphic” content, they are required by law to run ads by candidates for federal office within a 45-day window before any primary.
Boisclair is a member of the Society for Truth and Justice, which was founded by longtime anti-abortion warhorse Randall Terry, who is currently running as a Democrat against President Barack Obama.
This year the Society ran five candidates nationwide. The group knew the candidates could not win their primary races. Rather, the objective was to spend $150,000-$250,000 collectively on hard-hitting TV ads solely to get their message before segments of the mainstream television audience.
Although Boisclair is a native of Minnesota, according to his website he has not lived in the state since 2003, and is a Pro-Life Tea Party activist with the Society for Truth and Justice in Washington DC.
Boisclair supplied a West Virginia address when he filed to run for office. Apparently the law does not require congressional candidates to live in the state or district where they are seeking election.
As a chagrined TV station reported, “Twin Cities television stations are powerless to block a Congressional candidate’s controversial ads.”
By federal law, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, TV stations cannot reject the ads from legally registered federal candidates who are actively campaigning.
The air time must be made available at the “lowest unit rate,” if it’s a direct ad by the candidate’s own campaign, rather than a third party such as PAC. Furthermore, broadcasters are barred from altering the ad in any way.
“The station loses any right to censor if it’s a political ad,” [said] Twin Cities attorney Terrance Moore.
Moore, who has served as legal counsel for the Minnesota Broadcasters Association for many years, said the federal law is designed to prevent broadcasters from influencing the election through uneven treatment of campaigns.
“We don’t want a broadcaster to be able to shape, edit, alter the presentation the candidate wants to make of himself,” Moore explained.
TV stations have more leeway in contesting erroneous and misleading material when it comes to candidates for local and state offices, and third-party “issue ads” can be treated differently. [Sounds like plenty of latitude for censorship to me!]
But when it comes to candidates for federal offices, broadcasters must take a hands-off approach. Boisclair is not required to disclose the sources of his funding until after the primary.
The Empire Strikes Back
The stations reacted by running extremely intrusive disclaimers before and after the ads, insinuating that the ideas and images contained in them were somehow improper—possibly even dangerous to little tykes!
At such moments the Left unobtrusively drops common feminist memes like the characterization of children as “parasites” (Slate is owned by the Washington Post). See also here. The far-Left Daily Kos, founded and published by a mixed-race writer for The Hill and Newsweek, is a private affiliate of the Democratic Party that receives hundreds of thousands of hits daily and is supported by Establishment advertising.
I mention the Daily Kos writer’s “parasite” characterization of unborn babies because another writer for the site attacked Boisclair’s ad here. The Slate article calls both fetuses and children “parasites.”
The TV stations allege that their disclaimers are legal, although this is evidently the first time they’ve ever been used.
In common sense terms the action would appear to violate the ban on altering (these specific) campaign ads in any way. Moreover, due to obvious content-based discrimination, and their highly negative effect, they seriously prejudice the candidate’s message. This seems contrary to the spirit and intent of the law.
Nevertheless, it seems likely legal steps will quietly be taken to “close” the FCC “loopholes,” as media outlets all characterized the law forbidding censorship.
The fact that Keith Ellison won the primary with 89.6% of the vote (30,600 votes), while Gary Boisclair came in a distant third with 4.1% (1,397 votes) trailing even adless, unknown second-place finisher Gregg A. Iverson at 6.3% (2,143 votes), is completely irrelevant.
The fear in their hearts is that Boisclair’s ideas could conceivably have a real-world impact if enough people were exposed to them.
Moreover, anyone who’s politically incorrect might theoretically take advantage of the same laws.
Contemporary society requires centralized control of the media and suppression of marginal speech in order to maintain itself.
Probably no one seriously believes that abortion, anti-white racism, genocide, Middle East injustice, the billion-dollar pornography industry trafficking in young white flesh, and numerous other pillars of the state and culture could survive the full light of day.
Not even me, and I’m pretty damned cynical.