Will There Soon Be Hate-Speech Gulags in Scotland?

This may soon be a common sight in Scotland. Prisoners arriving at the “Solovetsky Special Purpose Prison Camp in 1927 or ’28.

1,454 words

One of the points Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn bangs home a lot in his classic work of historical research, The Gulag Archipelago, is that political prisoners in the Soviet gulag system were of lower status and were treated worse than actual criminals, such as rapists, thieves, and murderers. This is exactly what happens when a hostile elite takes over a nation. At best, it doesn’t trust the people. At worst, it hates the people. This is all because it feels insecure in its power, which it desperately wants to keep. It will look for any excuse to eliminate those individuals it deems to be the least trustworthy or the most hateworthy, because such people, usually through what they say, pose the greatest threat to their power.

The Soviet gulag system exemplifies a hostile elite at its most dangerous and deadly. Vying for second place, however, is Humza Yousaf’s Scotland, which, on April 1st (not a joke), will implement a new hate speech law that could enable the Scottish police to arrest people in their homes for hate-speech violations.

From the official Hate Crime National Guidance document issued to the Scottish police:

Hate Crime — A hate crime is any crime which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated (wholly or partly) by malice and ill-will towards a social group.

There are currently five social groups protected under hate crime legislation:

• Disability or presumed disability (any disability including physical disability, learning disability and mental health).
• Race or presumed race (any racial group, ethnic background or national origin, including countries within the UK and Gypsy / Traveller groups).
• Religion or presumed religion (any religious group, including those who have no faith).
• Sexual orientation or presumed sexual orientation (sexual orientation towards persons of the same sex or of the opposite sex or towards both).
• Transgender identity or presumed transgender identity (defined as transvestism, transsexualisms, intersexuality or having by virtue of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (c7), changed gender and any other gender identity that is not standard male or female gender identity. This refers to a whole range of people who find their gender identity or gender expression differs in some way, from the gender assumptions made by others about them when they were born).

In other words, if someone perceives himself to be a victim, then he is a victim in the eyes of the law. Furthermore, the law seems to give self-styled victims the ability to read minds, because if he perceives “malice and ill-will towards a social group” in another person merely from what he says, then guess what? That malice and ill-will exists, and that person will be in trouble with the police.

You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s Solzhenitsyn and the Right here.

It makes me wonder who the real victims are.

Notice the very specific language describing that last protected group above: trans people. This indicates that transgender folks are now a key part of this hostile elite in a way that a Roman Catholic wouldn’t be. And this makes sense. Trans people are a tiny minority, and their behavior is clearly dysgenic. If there are enough transgender people in the world, civilization will come to a grinding halt due to its surgically-determined inability to reproduce itself. Thus, transgender people who identify as transgender in a political sense rightly face existential political consequences every time someone feels repulsed by a man who believes he has had himself transformed into a woman on the operating table. They need protection, and so appeal to government to redefine human rights in order to get it. In other words, no one has the right to express negative opinions of transgenderism anymore.

The problem is that the people are correct in perceiving transgenderism as dysgenic and a threat to society. Also, transgender people are incorrect in assuming that their lifestyle is a good and that we need more of it by making it cheap and easy for people to permanently alter their sex. But none of this matters, according to the hostile elite in Scotland.

Notice also how First Minister Yousaf violates his own hate speech law by targeting white people:

In Scotland we have a new Hate Crime Bill coming into effect, championed by this complete idiot and expert in hate speech. Yet, he can have us arrested for wrong speak, even in our own homes. Peak insanity continues in real time. 🤡🌍 pic.twitter.com/4V43JMIfEX

— The Jules (@TheJulesMcC) March 20, 2024

White people are clearly not a protected group, or otherwise Yousaf himself would be the first person rounded up on April 1st.

And you just gotta see the incredible way they are propagandizing this hate crime law. Behold the Hate Monster:

Simply put, this law enables so-called victims to become victimizers. It will also reward dishonesty. Suppose two people of different “social groups” have a business dispute. One person is part of a protected group, and the other isn’t. How many in the former group will be able to resist the temptation to fabricate a “hate crime” and blame it on his adversary? If history is any indication — especially in the Soviet Union — the answer is not enough to prevent abuse. And this says nothing about all the resources and effort the Scottish authorities will have to expend in figuring out how to enforce this. Did so-and-so really commit a hate crime when he rolled his eyes at those poor African migrants who were defecating in the street? Did that person really commit a hate crime for gasping in horror when that poor transgender person exposed his penis to an eight-year-old girl in a ladies’ bathroom?

Don’t the Scottish police have real criminals to go after?

Oh, that’s right! The Scottish police force is ruled by a hostile elite that is more concerned about political crimes than actual crimes — just like in The Gulag Archipelago. So rapists, thieves, and murderers have to take a back seat to the person who reads Race and Evolution by Stephen Sanderson and comes to accurate, yet less-than-flattering conclusions about certain races. The same goes for anyone who reads Easy Meat by Peter McLaughlin or The Limits of Democratization by Tatu Vanhanen and comes to accurate, yet less-than-flattering conclusions about certain religions and nationalities, respectively. The same also goes for anyone who reads Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together and comes to similar conclusions about a certain neurotic, clannish, and self-serving ethnic group which has a dangerous and persistent penchant for Left-wing extremism. But if somebody reads, say, White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo — or one of the hundreds of books like it — in their freshman Introduction to Cultural Studies class at a state-funded university and comes to downright negative conclusions about white people, then that’s cool.

You can buy Spencer J. Quinn’s young adult novel The No College Club here.

Some people make better victims than others, it seems.

You see where I’m going with this, don’t you? I’m talking about me and people like me. If I were Scottish, this new law could put me in prison. Why? Because I am well-informed and I don’t want to shut up about it. I don’t promote violence of any kind. But I do promote high levels of civilization, which necessarily entails minimal corruption and crime as well as personal liberty, strong borders, military preparedness, traditional values, and the rule of law based on human biology and the foundational precepts of Western government which have been tried and tested for millennia. This will inevitably require saying “no” to those who, for whatever reason, consistently promote lower levels of civilization — the opposite of the examples given above. Such people are not content with lower levels of civilization only in their parts of the world. They intend to come to traditional white homelands and bring civilization down to their level there as well.

The first step they take is redefining what human rights are.

Now here’s a question: Under what authority should we claim that human rights even exist? The concept stems from two axioms: first, that life is good; and second, that life’s origins are mysterious. This leads one to reasonably conclude that if this mystery created life, it also made it good. And since God is a stand-in for this mystery, and since you can’t have the good life without human rights, it follows that human rights stem from God.

Of course, you don’t have to believe in God to believe in human rights (or any system of ethics), but it makes it easier. What the hostile elite in Scotland is doing is ascribing to themselves what should be the purview of God alone. This is pure hubris — and it will lead to gulag archipelagos all across the West, if given enough time.