Kenn's Laws | | REAL Black History | Kenn's Essays | History & Archaeology | Weather

Why Racism is Wrong | Why White Supremacy is Wrong | Why Antisemitism Is Wrong

MUST READ ► My Horrific Experience With A Psychopath

May 4, 2012


The term "racist" is defined by the leftish Demagoguery Dictionary as anyone who disagrees with leftish demagogues.

Think Obama is a socialist? You're a racist. 
Think Affirmative Action is racist? You're a racist. 
Think $16 trillion national debt is insane? You're  racist.

The term "racist" is a convenient slap-down device utilized by liberals who would otherwise be compelled to think. 

"Leftish" is a word I just invented and will  be added to Kenn's Dictionary as meaning anything or anyone who leans to the political or economic left. 

What prompted this article was that annoying beeping sound that emits from my crystal ball anytime an unconfirmed, yet eminent, event enters its field of attention.

The British government will be forcing Internet service providers (ISPs) to block racist web sites. Again, "racist" refers to anything to the right of center.

In this case the beeping was prompted by a news report that the UK is about to compel ISPs to block X-rated web sites. 

Say, "Slippery slope."

Or, "Pandora's box."

For the record, I'm more prude than dude. I have no patience for "purveyors of porn" as the Don Wildmons among us like to call it. 

In my humble opinion, the entire porn industry is a disgrace to human dignity. It's common core is exploitation. My wish is that humanity would evolve to a point of eliminating its attraction. 

What I hate more than pornography is excessive government control. 

Again, Pandora's box on a slippery slope. 

Once the British government discovers that censorship of X-rated web sites passes that nation's legal hurdles, it will be a matter of time before leftish loons set out to apply the precedence to other evils of society. 

The image on my crystal ball showed political web sites that advocate the preservation of Western culture being blocked. Free market economists whose theories are anathema to "we're all equal" socialists will be railed against then blackened. Opposed to minimum wage? Keynesian economics? Tax hikes? Excessive government debt? Don't dare declare your views on your blog, lest the Scotland Yard show up on your front porch with a court order; and a hefty fine.

While social conservatives may applaud the move towards a less offensive Internet, they should be keenly aware that those making the rule consider social conservatives to be offensive. To empower government to censor Hugh Hefner is to empower the government to censor Nick Griffin.

According to The Guardian, Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron wants to launch the effort with a palatable 'opt in' plan. He wants filters to be implemented by ISPs by default. Internet users will be forced to blush as they 'opt in' to access X-rated sites.

Again, assume that Cameron's plan will increasingly be applied to other sites the government considers offensive. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


  1. I thought I posted on this before... I came back to see if Ken commented or responded, even though he usually doesn't respond to posts. I will assume I didn't complete the post at this time and resist the temptation to consider that my post was removed...and I will repost.

    Access to pornography was limited with laws passed over a dozen years ago in an effort to restrict exposure to minors on the internet. Thanks to the ACLU those laws were overturned, in the name of free speech, and now children with an internet connection have free access to hard core pornography free of charge. Some surveys and studies estimate that adult males in the US who have viewed pornography in the last two weeks is between 40-90%.

    There have already been proposals and efforts to ban racist websites in Europe...

    I want to add another thought this time, this whole slippery slope argument seems slightly off to me. I believe a true slippery slope risk appears when one attributes subjective qualifiers to support objective criteria, because that which is an objective truth is then reduced by a subjective dependancy. Once subjectivity is injected into the equation, there is your slippery slope... but by itself, one could never objectively defend a right to present pornography to children. The intent of pornography is sexual arousal, it is not to convey information. It is not possible to defend objectively as free speech, no matter what the supreme court decides. One could objectively defend the right to present informative material that may be deemed 'racist', because racism is a subjective qualifier, and the intent of presenting such material is to inform. Even if if the intent is persuasion it could be defended, although circumstancial details would necessarily require examination.

    So the point is we can call it 'a slippery slope' because we all believe the goverment will likely abuse the new power, but tolerating the objectively lesser evil of pornography to prevent a subjectively greater evil does not pass the muster of being an ethical reason to tolerate universal access to pornography.

    1. Some comments are automatically consigned to the 'spam' folder where they must be reviewed and manually approved.

      Such was the case with the above comment. My apologies.