#BoyottIndiana or face our wrath, cisgendered shitlords! Hapless Republican Gov. Mike Pence is the Left’s new target for hate after signing a bill designed to protect the “Religious Freedom” of all those florists and bakers who don’t want to provide services for gay weddings. Pence has already caved, but it might be too late. Various celebrities, cities like Seattle and San Francisco, and well known moral authorities like the NCAA and Charles Barkley have gleefully welcomed the opportunity to preen and call for the Hoosier State to suffer the fate of Carthage for its impudence. And if we can’t look to Miley Cyrus for guidance, where can we lift our eyes in this dark time?

Naturally, the debate isn’t about actual “oppression.” The bill says that unless there is a “compelling state interest,” there will be no interference in the exercise of religious freedom. What this really means is that you can’t sue people for refusing to provide services if it violates their religious beliefs. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even Chuck Schumer backed legislation that did the same thing not too long ago.

The Beltway Right has plenty of clever counter-examples to defend the legislation, mostly focusing on how any normal person would concede that business owners shouldn’t have to provide service to “Nazis.” Do you want Jews to be forced to start baking cakes with swastikas? (Insert your own oven joke here guys.) And we can’t expect a Muslim bakery to serve halal to homosexuals.

Well, of course the law doesn’t apply to them. In fact, there was a bake shop known as Your Muslim Bakery headed by some fellows with silly names tied to the Nation of Islam. They went off and murdered a White man in 2007, because, well, hating White people was the center of their identity, religion, and “culture.” And no hate crime charges were filed because you know why. This law would work the same way.

There’s a famous scene in A Man for All Seasons when Sir Thomas More is challenged by his future son in law to abandon the law if it enables the destruction of evil. More responds:

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

The problem with these fine words is the liberal assumption that the “law” has an independent force and existence on its own rather than relying upon practical arrangements of power. He who is sovereign is he who makes the exception, after all, and the sovereign hates us. Racially-aware Whites are already in a position where the protection of law simply does not apply. Even if conservatives or Whites generally “take the high road” and extend to others the protection of the law, our foes will not extend the same charity.

One of the most chilling parts of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco was the in-depth investigation by the FBI to see if Zimmerman had ever said or done anything that could be perceived as “racist.” Besides being of mixed race himself, Zimmerman had a perfectly PC record, even to the point of having complained to local police about the beating of a homeless black man. Zimmerman still recites the usual American creed of a colorblind nation and when he recently condemned President Obama, it was for “dividing” Americans against each other.

Zimmerman still had his life more or less destroyed, but there can be little doubt that if they had found any kind of unapproved books on his shelves or websites in his cache, he’d be rotting in a cell today. Already, Attorney General Eric Holder has spoken of the need to lower the standard of proof for “civil rights crimes.” Whites instinctively know that the “law” can only provide so much protection if you are confronted by a politically protected minority. And racially aware Whites know the government simply will not enforce the law when it comes to protecting our own constitutional rights.

By virtue of reading this website, all of you who read this are “outlaws” in the most primitive sense, no matter how bourgeois your life may be. If a nonwhite broke into your house right now and you successfully defended yourself, the only way you do not go to jail is if the authorities don’t find out about your political views.

It isn’t about the law. The same federal judges who made amazing discoveries about a “compelling state interest” for diversity, the “right” for illegal immigrants to receive federal benefits, or the need for the states to recognize homosexual marriage in defiance of all established law would simply throw out the law anyway.

The controversy in Indiana has the same kind of artificial quality all these new “civil rights crusades” possess. The rage against Indiana isn’t an attempt to change the balance of power, it’s an exercise of power, a showy display to inform Christians that they need to get with the program if they want to be suffered to exist in even their most degraded form.

The exaggerated claims of victimhood and the demand they be taken seriously are how power is exercised in our society. In the past, you’d show you were powerful by hosting a military parade or staging a mass rally. Today, you tell people you are on the brink of genocide by fanatical Christians who have imposed the equivalent of “Sharia law” as a “prelude to another Kristallnacht.” This is taken seriously, while protests against the genocidal campaign being waged against Boer farmers are actually seen as evidence of bigotry by the accuser.

Thus, you have examples of Oppression Hunting for the purpose of rent seeking. Take the example of Cynthia and Robert Gifford of New York. A Jennifer McCarthy (not the anti-vaxxer) and a Melisa Erwin, who look exactly like you would expect, called the Giffords to request their farm to host a ceremony. The Giffords declined, the phone call was being recorded, a state “Division of Human Rights” got involved, and “civil liberties groups” made sure to file lots of lawsuits to get the Giffords to pay hefty fines because special snowflakes had their feelings hurt. What the Giffords did wrong, of course, was tell the deviants why they were denying services, instead of simply saying, “Oh, there’s been a mistake, we’re booked.”

The law as such still provides some obstacles to the more outrageous cases, like the recent lawsuit of Ellen Pao. Pao sued her employer Kleiner Perkins because of “unconscious bias” against women, meaning that if she won, you could commit thoughtcrime without even knowing it. Pao lost, but the elite media’s wailing suggests that we’re only one case away from such a nightmarish vision becoming state mandated reality.

The logical conclus
ion of all of this is that it is an urgent necessity of American life is to avoid diversity in all its forms, not just because of the traditional reasons of seeking “good schools” and “low crime” but to protect yourself from lawsuits. And this is especially difficult when new categories of oppressed minorities are invented every other week (this is submitted to the editor on the #transdayofvisibility).

Within a decade, we’ll probably see a lawsuit because an employer didn’t let his otherkin worker who thinks he’s a bear hibernate all winter. (Am I joking? Probably, but someone on Tumblr is already plotting his/her/its legal strategy). The predictions by all those Southern segregationists that the Civil Rights Act would lead to “Communism” were, if anything, far too optimistic.

The temptation will be for Whites to climb on board by claiming they are also part of an “oppressed” category. Gay rights, feminism, transgenders, otherkin, fat acceptance, and whatever else are all ways to claim the mantle of the oppressed even if you’re White. And the fiercest battle on the Left is over whether White cisgendered homosexuals are really part of the “oppressed” class or recipients of privilege. Where Jews fit into this equation is, for obvious reasons, not really debated on the Left.

The definition of “White” really is becoming a social construct in some ways. A person who can be sued for discrimination and can’t use his “identity” as part of his defense is, in the eyes of the government and the media, White. (Think of how common is the defense of “I can’t be racist because I’m gay/half-black/part-Jewish,” etc). And for legal, social, and above all financial reasons, few want to be just White.

At the same time, the existence of a White “enemy” is necessary to the continued functioning of the System, because it is the only glue holding the vast multicultural apparatus together. There will always be “Whites” to be attacked. And those Whites will be associated with other media targets, notably orthodox (small “o”) Christianity, conventional sexuality, and values such as patriotism and masculinity.

The mission of the Identitarian Right is twofold: to the break the dominant Narrative by defining our own Identity, and to establish White Identity as both a source of pride and material advantage. The objective, biological reality of race has to serve as the foundation of any such discussion, but it can’t be sufficient. The Identity of a people is more than just DNA.

The building of a subculture is obviously the first step in that process and at first glance it would mean defending religious freedom so as to preserve as much of a “safe space” as possible. But the fact is, whatever the law says, there is no safe space for us that that the law defends. As we are born into outlawry, we have to act like it, not being by edgelords and bragging about how tough we are, but by systematically setting up economies, cultural institutions, and social gatherings that operate as far from officialdom as possible. Technology has unleashed the leftist Hive as never before, but it also enables a new Tribalization that can fill the moral and social vacuum at the heart of this Hollow Empire and pave the way for what comes next.

Normal American Christians who still remember what they saw as the heady days of the Bush Administration are still adjusting to the reality that this isn’t their country, and they think their constitutions and flags will protect them. But their government’s laws don’t matter, and the government won’t even let Whites fly its own flag because it might upset minorities. It’s not about legal battles, it’s about power. And until American conservatives stop believing a piece of paper will protect them, they’ll keep losing both.