If you are old enough to remember the 1990’s or earlier, then you remember when the Left was the free speech side of the debate. If you are a Baby Boomer then you probably remember the Free Speech Movement. It is an odd thing that has happened in the last ten years or so where the poles have reversed on many things, but none more so than the issue of speech. It is what the left-wing crazies call the “far-right” that upholds the old liberal traditions on speech, not the Left.
In 1978, the ACLU came to the aid of a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie. The area was mostly Jewish, which is why the group wanted to march through their neighborhood. The ACLU made clear that they thought the group was full of terrible people but they had a right to march wherever marching was permitted. Young people were taught in school about this because it was supposed to be a great example of the free speech principle.
There is no way the ACLU would do this today. Instead, they would be on the other side trying to ruin the lives of anyone who dared speak up for the group. The ACLU, like all of the legacy civil rights groups from last century, opposes the basic civil rights of white Americans on the grounds of race. It is a good corollary to Robert Conquest’s second law of politics. Any organization that does business with leftists eventually is consumed by or destroyed by leftists.
The interesting thing about speech and the so-called far-right is that many who claim to be far-right also oppose Western liberalism. You have people who want an authoritarian state, but also say they want free speech. Free expression is inextricably bound up in liberal governance. You cannot have a liberal society in the Western sense without free expression and you cannot have illiberal government with it. Free expression is the cornerstone of the liberal society.
It is why the Antifa types are anti-speech. They are illiberal and authoritarian. These are people who make various claims to communism, Marxism and even anarchism, but embrace the unfettered use of corporate power to suppress speech. It is fair to say that the anti-speech movement in America is the expression of corporate power. Of course, what passes for the Left these days operates from the HR departments of global enterprise and free speech is antithetic to the corporate state.
For sites like this to exist, it requires people like you chipping in a few bucks a month to keep the lights on and the people fed. Five bucks a month is not a lot to ask. If you don’t want to commit to a subscription, make a one time donation via crypto. Or, you can send money to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. You can also use PayPal to send a few bucks. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.
The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
This Week’s Show
Contents
- 00:00: Opening
- 03:00: The War On Speech
- 23:00: The Benefit of Speech
- 43:00: The Harm of Speech
Direct Download, The iTunes, Google Play, iHeart Radio, RSS Feed
Full Show On Spreaker
Full Show On Odysee
Z has said it in the past and I am too young to have known otherwise – free speech doesn’t not exist in the West because free association (at least for whites) is banned. Without free association, there is no freedom of speech.
Care to elaborate on this postulate?
I believe what he is trying to say is that if one were gathered with many like-minded people from your “group”, one might wish to engage in speech/topics pertaining to that group, that those outside of that group might find objectionable/offensive.
Since European-Americans are no longer afforded the right of Freedom of Association and thus cannot gather together (openly anyway) to discuss topics concerning their group, they must choose their words of expression very carefully, lest the wrong person overhear them. Once that happens, they’ll be banished from the realm.
This is pretty much it and said better than I could have.
OT, maybe.
Stumbled onto a Russel Brand video. It was like watching a hipper, funnier Tucker segment.
My opinion of Brand was, well, I didn’t have one. Didn’t know much about him.
It seems he has had an aha moment and has meandered over to our side of the devise.
Couple observations;
He’s funny and articulate. I don’t know if he scripts his videos, but if he doesn’t, he has a quick wit.
He may be someone to show your normie friends to get them on the bridge to our side. You know. Cool British dude who basically slams both sides of the isle.
He also is not afraid to face his demons. Apparently the guy was a heroin addict. I’ve seen the effects of that in real time. He’s not proud of it, but doesn’t avoid the topic.
Give his stuff a listen. If nothing else you’ll get a good chuckle.
I stumbled onto Brand last summer, thinking he was another privileged leftist. But you’re right, he’s been expressing opinions that have surely cost him to lose the good graces of the entertainment world. He’s not on this side of the divide at all, but he’s probably a good gateway drug.
Another one who’s really changed his tune is Mark Dice. He used to do those tiresome videos where he’d interview the man on the street so we could all mock how uninformed Joe Public is. Now he’s pumping out demi-DR material, nibbling around the edges of race realism and the JQ. Frankly, I can’t believe that he hasn’t been banned from Youtube yet. And reading the comments on his videos (>1.5 million subs) shows that there is a lot of “noticing” going on out here.
Speaking of numbers, Utube has his subscribers (Brands),at 5.4 million. That’s quite the feat no matter who you are.
Z’s post does not deal with the issue of heresy. For a long time, heresy was a serious offense, because the Church believed that holding the wrong views on the nature of the deity and the means of salvation could damn a person’s immortal soul. Someone holding heretical views was bad enough, but a proselytizing heretic was worse than a murderer; a murderer could only deprive you of your life in this world, whereas a heretic could persuade you to believe things that damned your soul for all eternity. That’s the reason why heresy was punished so severely (burning at the stake). In my opinion, what we are seeing is a return to a system of punishment for heretics; people whose views lie outside the acceptable bounds of opinion and discourse. Right now the only penalty in the US is banishment, but punishment for unacceptable speech in Europe is common (e;g., Eric Zemmour is constantly being fined for expressing his views) and it’s likely that punishing heretics by fines and imprisonment will catch on in the U.S.
The Proud Boys of New York were imprisoned for wrongthink. Jan 6 people have to disavow Trump or face incarceration.
Leader of the proud boys Enrique Tarrio is reportedly a prolific CI.
He might be. It certainly wouldn’t shock me. It also wouldn’t shock me if the hive fabricated that lie about him in order to discourage and defeat the proud boys. It’s impossible to know anymore.
link — Apparently Claire Lehmann thinks Israel will cease to exist unless America bankrupts itself maintaining the empire
It’s not clear if you were joking or not, but just in case: Claire Lehmann isn’t Jewish — honestly, here I’m sure she was referring to Australia, since many Australians do fear China will dominate Asia, including Australia, in the coming decades.
She occasionally says dumb things, and this may be one of those occasions — but she isn’t Jewish.
There’s a lot of countries out there who benefit from the presence of the American Globocop…while treating that cop the same way a zit faced, pot headed teenager would. When that cop retires or abdicates or can’t do his job anymore… the world is going to become a very different place. The Ukraine issue will be just the beginning.
On the other hand, war makes for rattling good history.
Yes. Instead of AINO bombing the shit out of every country to enforce Globohomo, countries will be duking it out on their own.
Free speech is a convenient rallying cry for dissidents against our rulers but it is as contrary to human nature as is the blank slate.
Looking over history, absolute free speech has never existed. In any group of people, taboos on speech form. In both ancient Athens and frontier America, the pinnacles of free speech, one could not publically mock the gods of the people without punishment.
I will be honest: I want the society of open debate of ideas that is natural to European Whites but I oppose absolute free speech. If anyone in my community starts to argue for non-white immigration, free trade, or rights for the sexually perverse, then that person should be expelled, if not worse.
If you champion absolute free speech, then you roll out the welcome mat for those who want to destroy you.
“Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance, but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, amd the other of granting it…
But Toleration may be viewed in a much stronger light. Man worships not himself, but his Maker; and the liberty of conscience which he claims is not for the service of himself, but of his God. In this case, therefore, we must necessarily have the associated idea of two beings; the mortal who renders the worship, and the IMMORTAL BEING who is worshipped. Toleration, therefore, places itself, not between man and man, nor between Church and Church, nor between one denomination of religion and another, but between God and man; between the being who worships, and the BEING who is worshipped and by the same act of assumed authority by which it tolerates man to pay his worship, it presumptuously and blasphemously sets itself up to tolerate the Almighty to receive it.”
Thomas Paine, “The Rights Of Man”
I’m so sick and goddamn tired of jeworld., fucking exausted, the bullshit, the lies. the propaganda, the bought and paid for politicians, the constant hand in your pocket to steal your last dollar. Sick of it , fed the fuck up. This is 1933 Germany, hyperinflation, decadence, sickness and misery.. They won’t stop till we bring the pain. They can shove the neworldorder up their ass.
I think many of us are where you are. And we all know the only way to have a chance of ending it. Unfortunate.
It’s how I chose my moniker. It sums up how I feel at this point.
There’s sort of an eerie calm right now where everyone knows something is gonna happen but no one wants to address it. So you see various bat signals going about. Did anyone catch what Larry Fink said about how this Ukrainian conflict is going to spell the end of globalization? Either that’s what Totalitary Larry wants and he’s just gloating OR he could be quaking in his boots. I’m hoping it’s the latter
My guess, and only a guess, is that he sees the writing on the wall, so to speak, does not want to be Nebuchadnezzar, and figures he can make money investing in what would amount to be national industrial policy. He also is likely angling for a government bailout.
The grift is strong in that one.
He sees the writing on the wall that the world is going back to a bi, possibly trifurcated state.
That’s great.
Except for the fact that we are going to wind up with two or three totalitarian states that strongly resemble the others.
Fink is just despondent he’ll only be able to control one of those states, rather than the entire globe.
I think you should get a group of a dozen people or so to go to black rock headquarters and dress up as catholic priests and have one of those holy water things and start flicking holy water saying “the power of christ compels you” and other people holding up signs that say “Repent larry”
Civilizational cycles are real, the history of the West, India, China, Egypt etc. etc. are evidence of this. You can be the most advanced and powerful civilization at one point in time and a few centuries later a backwater. This leads to that a culture, the unwritten rules, customs and habits, of a civilization can be healthy or sick, or with a non-medical term, productive or harmful. Or perhaps better, eugenic cultural norms vs dysgenic cultural norms.
Based on this it seems to me that different levels of freedom will be rational and useful based on the state of the culture of your civilization. In the outburst and growth stages you want a lot of initiative and energy and so freedom should be maximized. Right now we are (clearly!!) in a spiralling dysgenic, decadent phase. This is basically a ‘fireman’s phase’ in the life of a civilization, where you want to save what can be saved. Hopefully for a later rebound. In that phase you probably do not want maximum freedom. It will be abused to claim that boys are girls, gays are normal, genders optional and, because of all the spiritual deadness inside, that the civilization is essentially evil and deserves to die. In this phase you need to restrict freedom, including freedom of speech.
In this phase I think you need strong-man rule to survive although that does not seem to be enough regrettably. Franco, Pinochet and others essentially tried to shield their countries from the Western decadence that was already sufficiently advanced 100 years ago to be recognized by people like Spengler. When they left office, decadence basically took over. It turned out to be a stay of execution, not a reprieve. Still worth trying in our acute phase btw, if any based colonels are reading. But we need to think about what comes after the tourniquet. We need an ethno-religious revival. We need to make life fun and adventurous again instead of awkward, bizarre and shameful.
In (relatively) modern times, you can add to the list in roughly chronological order (with much overlap): France, Spain, England; perhaps Soviet Union and USA in 20th Century. These nations, especially England, controlled or at least heavily influenced major swathes of the globe in their heyday.
If there is any lesson of empire it is simply that empire doesn’t last. We may argue over what comes after, but like as not it won’t be very nice, and will spill a lot of blood. 🙁
Basement Joe just exercised his privilege to loose speech and heavily implied that the 82nd Airborne are going to Ukraine:
https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/1507391947622817793
WW3 is about to get lit…
Fucking great Nuclear war in Europe to protect politician kickbacks.
.
world war potato head.
I’m so sorry, trumpton.
I didn’t vote for this garbage.
I’d fix it if I could.
“Basement Joe just exercised his privilege to loose speech … .”
And we have confirmation b/c the statement has been officially denied.
We need a latter-day Henry III to ask, “Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome bonehead?”
Eh, he just says the quiet part out loud from time to time. It’s the real string pullers who need the “three knights” treatment.
If God offered an old-school world war, with modern conventional weapons in exchange for removing all nukes and ability to build them, I would take the deal. Old-school world wars are bad but most survive them and then you rebuild. Team cockroach are the only ones who should rationally push for a nuclear world war.
He also admitted that many 82nd Airborne had ALREADY been to Ukraine.
Which explains the lack of Russian progress and Ukranian “successes.”
His Regency figures that the Russians will just take that lying down. Instead of stirring up the mother of all bad things for us here at home so the 82nd gets withdrawn to the US to put down revolts.
I will leave it for people here to figure out what Putin’s logical move would be to cause the equivalent of the Roman Legions withdrawn from Britain in 415 AD. Just note that the Japanese Imperial Intelligence service put a lot of money and effort into first the Moorish Temple and then the successor Nation of Islam.
The question then is – was the media shouting fire in a crowded theater in March 2020. You could argue they were
The media are burning down the theater with everyone in it and holding the doors shut.
so a giant murder-suicide like jonestown?
The history of the Left’s relationship with free speech reminds me of the old Will Rogers line: “ Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.”
Of course they were, it’s all orchestrated.
Covid started IMMEDIATELY after trump was acquitted for russian collusion.
Then when people started rising up against the lockdowns, WHAM! came the other hand with the floyd riots and terrorism.
Then the stolen election. Then entrapment of the J6 protestors. Then forced “vaccines.”
2020 was the year for people with eyes to see, to finally see in clear 2020 vision.
Covid also “started IMMEDIATELY” after Trump began a trade war with China. And sorry, bro, don’t really recall Trump doing jack-all about the 2020 negro riots. He uh, wanted to make the Dems look bad; because disasters beget disasters or something.
@fakeemail
that’s the thing about COVID. In the early days the whole thing had sort of a deepfake vibe to it. Obviously the disease wasn’t a deepfake itself, but the whole thing felt like some experiment in trying out proto-deepfake technology. Also, wtf was up with all those makeshift hospitals. Like they were never used. Was it some bust-out operation?
The short answer to your question regarding hospitals is “yes”.
I’ve stated before here, that the 3,000 bed “emergency hospital” at McCormack Place on the lake, complete with beds and ambulance access had exactly ZERO usage during the Beer Flu.
Nurses were bragging about making double and triple time on their days off, for playing on their phones.
When you realize most of what the G does is a grift, most things are explained.
Would anyone’s life change, really at all, if the politicians and bureaucracy were abducted by aliens and disappeared forever?
I’m thinking not.
Precisely. The Left never supported free speech on principle; they supported it as a means to attain absolute power, at which point they pulled a volte face a crushed free speech. The hippies occupying college buildings and standing on top of cars bellowing for free speech later became the professors who forced universities to adopt speech codes.
The best fortified castle with moat, draw bridge, portcullis and other armament is not of much utility when those charged with operating the defenses will greet with open arms any swinging dick that wanders up the path and knocks on the door.
Free “Speech” Test Cases. Are these speech? Are they “dangerous”? Are they too much power given to nobodies who just want to watch us fight?
Exhibit One: NYT publishes an interactive map where you can zoom into the street level of your neighborhood and see exactly who donated, and how much, to each candidate in a federal election. And, of course, from where.
(link behind paywall, but it was eye popping. The FEC site is readily available if you want to check up on your neighbors)
—————————
Exhibit Two: Racial Dot Map of the US – by the U of Virginia Demographics Research Group. An excellent depiction of what areas you might want to move to if you want to maximize your multiculturalism.
Except…they took it down. Because apparently people were using this data, collected by the US Census, to AVOID multiculturalism. Imagine that.
https://demographics.coopercenter.org/racial-dot-map (the weasel words from the U of V who ended the Racial Dot map. Because it’s “too complicated”…which is to say, darned useful.)
The Zman is right…if you want to know how good the schools are, ask your realtor how good the basketball/soccer teams are.
The wayback machine has an archive copy. I haven’t checked the data as its very slow to use but they don’t get funded by Google.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170208154531/https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html
Sailer does make a point, the lack of free speech of ideas has a huge cost.
And I will say this, the cost gets bigger and bigger the more complex and inter-connected societies get. Lack of free speech means that stupid ideas are not blown out before they become policy and cannot be reversed.
The cost of that at its worst can be either global nuclear war or a plague created by fooling around (more) with bat viruses that wipes out 95% of humanity. Randomly.
The fundamental argument for free speech is that mankind has so many dangerous tools that can wipe us out that we need all sorts of voices, often from unpopular, “bad thinker” people to create stops on stuff before it kills all or most of us; and to less extents causes global poverty and misery and violence and disaster.
As Sting sang, the Russians love their children too!
“Russians love their children too?”
Time to cancel Sting. Because that’s what we do to support the current thing.
If asked, Sting would recant that statement.
Yes, but Sting might first deny he made the statement, or claim it was sarcasm. But if those did not work, he would recant.
That made me laugh, Ostei.
Hmffff. Cancelled Facecock 15 years ago, and never bothered with Twatter. I am all over Blab though. Even with the obvious haters and lunatics, it is better than being regulated and censored by jews, queers, marxists and all the other dregs of society. The rude jokes alone are worth the price of admission. I am still learning my way around Alt Tech and Rumble seems good.
Welp – thank goodness they aren’t shutting YOU down Z! I think one of the things you and Torba over at Blab get right is the idea of building an active and connected community and supporting your supporters.
Great show, have yourself a great weekend.
Rumble is controlled by “investors,” so expect it to become openly pozzed within about 18 months and to be compiling a “[your real name] a.k.a. Glenfilthie” dossier for the FBI/DOJ (and whatever hostile paramilitary entity the Capitol Police are mutating into) right now.
“The interesting thing about speech and the so-called far-right is that many who claim to be far-right also oppose Western liberalism. You have people who want an authoritarian state, but also say they want free speech.”
I think a lot of people on the “far-Right” only want as much authoritarianism as is needed to restore the the constitutional rights and cultural hegemony of pre-1960 white America.
Sure, there is some admiration for 1930s fascism, but a lot of it is tongue-in-cheek and exists largely because the fascists were ballsy enough to stand up to (((international socialists))) to defend their own people.
The “far-Right” simply understands that “democracy” is a losing game for whites and conservatives in an era of mass nonwhite immigration and Leviathan/ZOG/FedGov printing trillions to buy nonwhite votes with. The U.S. was founded was a white republic of federated states with a limited central government, not as a mass nonwhite democracy.
I think that is what most far-righters are pining for, not outright authoritarianism. However, as Pinochet and Franco demonstrated, authoritarianism may be the only option left to preserve traditional national culture in the postmodern ers.
The conundrum is that in order to “preserve” the Constitution, you must first utterly destroy it, then reinstate it. This puts a lot of temptation into the hands of a single person, the “Dictator”, as the Romans would name him. Sometimes it seems to have worked (for awhile anyway) as in the case of Cincinnatus, Pinochet, and Franco. Not so much with Stalin.
What dictator today would return power to a population that wasn’t comprised of his people? Chiang Ching-kuo peacefully transitioned Taiwan from a dictatorship to a politically liberal society in the late 80’s/early 90’s, but he was gifting control of the country to fellow Han.
If I’m an American Pinochet in 2022, why on earth would I give power back to Hispanics, Pajeets, Juice, etc.? I wouldn’t have seized in the first place if it wasn’t for their transgressions. There can be no trust without ties that go beyond shared ideas.
it’s not just the mud people issue, it’s also the normie situation. honestly, anything short of a huge culling won’t fix anything. seems like that’s what’s being dialed up by our own uncle joe so happy days are (soon to be) here again..
Much like women, normies are a lagging factor. They determine nothing, but simply follow the lead horse. If the lead horse is a rightwinger, they follow. Same goes if it’s a leftwinger. Normies have no agency.
Sometimes the transition actually does happen. For example, Franco from 1930s onward certainly met the definition of restoring a conservative order. But that came at a dire cost to the entire nation. His reign lasted roughly 40 years. The transition to democracy was peaceful. However, nearly half a century later, I seriously doubt that Ferdinand and Isabella would be very pleased with what had become of Spain.
Someone is going to be in control. The choice is who. Now, the people in charge hate us; they are enemy; they inflict harm, and the seek to further inflict harm.
The choice is who. Either we and our friends rule, or the enemy and their friends rule.
We can only allow as much freedom, and no more, then the constraint: we rule.
As some great thinker said, the xman or some such; first victory, then principles,
And the main principle is to ensure the anti-whites never gain power again.
I get where a lot of people are coming from regarding censorship at the hands of tech companies, particularly social media companies. However, so many of the complaints just seem really misguided, because they miss a couple key points about social media (and Twitter in particular).
First, social media is not generally geared towards providing a forum for substantiative speech. Twitter, in particular, is geared to be quite shallow. As such, it’s much more accurate to describe social media posts as emotional outbursts rather than speech. The point of posting on social media is to get validation for your feelings, not have a rational debate.
Second, social media users are viewed by the companies as the product, not the customer. Users that don’t confirm to the TOS are defective products, not unwanted customers. “If it’s free, you’re the product.” If you’re spouting off against the zeitgeist on social media, you’re a defective product. This is the view of tech companies, which is why talking about censorship misses the mark. They don’t see themselves as censoring users, but rather performing quality control on their output.
Honestly, it’s pretty telling that communication services you pay for, like cell phone service, ISPs, and proprietary email, are very vigilant about delivering the exact words to the exact recipient in the exact way you want with deviation, which is the opposite of censorship. Of course, you have to pay for these things, but then that’s why they don’t censor you: when you pay, your the customer and not the product. There’s a lesson in that.
Bull. You’re giving excuses for fanatical leftists be they commies or fascists who hate Whites, God and the USA.
It’s war. Screw’em.
I remember THE Free Speech Movement as a Berkeley-based phenomenon whose founder was a self-described proletarian hero named Mario Savio. Our own Mike Royko, in his later, curmudgeonly years, was to refer to it as the Foul Speech Movement, one of many socio-cultural ills he “credited” to California. Somehow, contributions to the Chicago ACLU dropped off for a time in view of the organization’s support for the right of the Nazis to march in Skokie (which was a popular spot for Chicago Jews whose West Side, South Shore and Rogers Park communities had become vibrant ‘hoods). I believe there WAS a march in southwest suburban Berwyn, but there were reportedly more policemen in attendance than marchers–or counter-demonstrators.
Hate speech is fake, just like everything else they do. They don’t even really believe it. Any reasonable definition of hate-speech would include statements like “we have to eliminate whiteness.” Hate-speech, like everything else, is selectively enforced. Anything we say they don’t like is hate-speech and anything they say, no matter how hateful, up to and including calls for genocide is not hate-speech. Notice all of the anti-Russian hate speech in the last month. Calls for genocide against Russians is OK now, because they are a disfavored group and the rules do not apply. Discriminating against ethnic Russians in the West is now perfectly acceptable, even moral and is applauded.
They will never give a definition of “hate speech” because then we could just follow the rules. They do a massive bait and switch with the rules as well. When they are publicly endorsing the rules, they will do so with really clear cut examples. They will say hate speech is calling for the genocide of a people or group, something most sensible people agree with, but in practice they expand the definition so far beyond recognition that linking to the FBI website becomes “hates speech” It’s not really a rule, it’s a weapon.
Having a corrupt judge or prosecutor or jury makes having a court hearing impossible. It doesn’t matter what the nominal rules are. The rules can be beautiful and perfect and it won’t save you. It doesn’t even really matter when the rules are entirely opaque if the court is corrupt because rules cannot save you from corruption.
Given the corruption of the law itself in the last 10 years (with a lot of “isolated” examples going back to the 50s and 60s), free speech is the least of our worries. The problem isn’t “hate speech,” the problem is the corruption of the rules and the enforcement of the rules. Speech rules may be enforced by corporations, but the real law has the backing of the state. The father/son pair in Georgia know all too well what corruption of the law means. It means life in prison. Maybe even the death penalty in the right situation.
their mistake was leaving the body on the ground outside. drag it one foot inside their house, and they were home free. put a gun in the perp’s hand and double plus good.
It’s easy: they supported ‘free speech’ to acquire power and are now blocking free speech to retain power.
I started really noticing the war on speech after Brexit. They were just so sure that Brexit would be a catastrophic failure and with a huge margin and that the EU was safe. Then Trump happened. That is when I really started noticing all anti-free speech.
Really, I don’t think they oppose free speech, they just oppose anyone who doesn’t agree with them on certain issues. They oppose opposition free speech because they lost. Just imagine all of this tranny stuff if everyone had free speech. It would be mocked relentlessly. They would be the butt of every meme and every joke. For every pro tranny meme, there would be a hundred just humiliating them. They know it. They know they are hated.
It’s not just speech. You cannot even defend yourself from an attacking mob or even just a random criminal. They have weaponized the law itself. Lady Justice is not blind, she’s a raging SJW who uses her power to crush anyone she disagrees with. They refuse to enforce the law against favored people and they use it to crush disfavored people.
Free speech only means freedom of thought and inquiry in an inherently decent and kind society; which we are not.
What does “free speech” mean when the Left successfully legalized/normalized pornography as “free speech”? Porn is a psyop weapon meant to addict, demoralize, and destroy.
What does it mean when YOUR words of simple sanity are violence and some crazed criminal’s violence are legitimate EXPRESSION?
I don’t WANT “free speech” so freaks can be freaks and sluts to be sluts. I don’t want rich men to have the power to brainwash us 24/7 with endless propoganda because of “free speech.” I don’t want bums sleeping on the streets because of “human rights.” I don’t want joggers given room to riot because of “civil rights.” I don’t want women ruining society and themselves because of “women’s rights.”
All of these “rights” are tools of criminals at the top and bottom to beat down and enslave the productive middle.
What the heritage Americans never understood is that they were being waged WAR upon. You don’t cede “rights” to your enemies; at least the Left understands that!
One of the rare instances when a comment could actually benefit from more caps and exclamation points.
Yup.
There are reasons the Internet is just fine providing an endless, completely explicit 4K peep show available at the drop of a tiny hat 24/7/365.
“You don’t cede “rights” to your enemies …”
They are attacking us. It’s war, not law. Those individuals and corporations attacking the European peoples inside European lands have neither property nor citizenship rights. Strip citizenship, strip property, expel.
The first step in this process is to internalize inside our heads that enemies have as many rights as they want to grant themselves in their own lands, and none in ours.
When the babbling of idiots reaches a point where it is harmful, not merely annoying, the reasonable man gets his shotgun and treats the situation like he would a rabid dog barking incessantly and threatening his family and livestock. This Dahl fellow is entitled to his opinion about the use of force; but the fact remains that sometimes Old Yeller needs to be delivered to the happy farm, as my late father used to say. Anyone can SAY whatever foul thing about me he pleases. It’s just noise. But if he’s foolish or malicious enough to back it up with an aggressive ACT, then fairness and “rights” go out the window because it’s either me or him. I aim for it to be me.
Free exchange of ideas, good.
Freedom of speech, bad.
Freedom of speech unrestrained by libel, slander, obscenity, bad.
Time is growing short and some forward thinking is necessary now.
The Cloud People cannot keep the plates spinning absent productive people that generate things of value. You cannot run an economy on parasites alone.
As the screws are tightened on freedom of speech and freedoms in general, the productive will eventually rebel against being made into serfs or slaves of the Borg. And the coming rebellion will pit a massively armed citizenry against institutional law enforcement and security services aligned with “government.” At the end of the day, this means white guys shooting at white guys.
And the above is being orchestrated with deliberate intent. The goal is for alphas to kill off alphas, and thereby eliminate the main obstacle to systemic enslavement of the masses. At some point, people will wake up to what is really happening, but the Elites need to delay that realization as long as possible, lest they find themselves in the cross-hairs prematurely. Can this gambit be stopped? Likely not, but there are effective countermeasures. This should be our focus, not endless abstraction analysis which just wastes precious time and resources on mental masturbation.
is a bad white person really worth crying over? who is it causing all the problems? white progs. without them the muds are back in the jungle hunting monkeys. who pushed all the coof madness? white kens and karens. kill them all and call it good.
I fear TomA is right. Whites are still (barely) a majority in this nation. If/when the conflict starts, alas it almost by necessity must be white vs. white, at least until clearly-defined factions form. It would very literally be Civil War II, at times at least literally brother against brother. If it’s to be revolution or other revolt, I doubt there is any way to spare a huge amount of bloodshed. I’m not an in-depth student of history, but have learnt enough to know that (say) the amicable divorce of Czechoslovakia ca. 1990 is the exception, not the rule.
We currently exist in a no-win situation.
Completely unregulated free speech is NOT good. And I’m not necessarily talking about legal or government regulation. For instance, when a man declares that he’s really a woman and that everyone who disagrees is a bigot, this should be universally seen as absurd nonsense crazy talk, no different than the weird man standing on the street corner handing out pamphlets for a UFO worship cult. Yet here we are with a Jewish tranny Health and Human Services secretary who has been declared a “4 star admiral”. The checks and balances on insanity like that have been totally turned upside down and backwards.
Historically such crazy talk was held at bay by social checks and balances. Shaming, jokes/humor, ridicule. When crazy ideas are considered the butt of jokes and a source of shame, people tend to avoid those ideas. Now the tools of shame and ridicule have been turned against normal people to cause us to question our own morality when we ridicule crazy people and crazy ideas. In a vacuum of shame and ridicule the crazy ideas of will become normalized and sanity has to hide in the shadows with whispering tones.
Yet here we are, and free speech is the only barrier left from the entire world turning completely batshit crazy. Those of us on the right who critical liberal speech and advocate for authoritarianism are a day late and a dollar short. The ship has already sailed, and any authoritarian infringement of free speech is going to be in the hands of the crazy people, not us. We simply cannot afford to let that line be crossed because there is no point of return without the west completely collapsing and giving way to China and Russia. (Not that I’m totally against such a scenario)
Basically we are f**ked
Well put; I feel the exact same way. There is no extrication from this problem without a great deal of suffering either way because we are so corrupt and sickly. The system really is a symptom of the populace’s illness. Just yesterday I wrote, “We have grabbed the wolf by the ears,” and it rings true with your point.
Z-man said: “Any organization that does business with leftists eventually is consumed by or destroyed by leftists.”
This is true.
And now that All significant institutions are ‘converged’ (i.e. Leftist) this means that the state bureaucracy, law, tax, finance, media, police, large/ medium-sized corporations etc. are all Leftist.
Therefore; since all organizations cannot help but interact with at least some of these in order to survive and function: All Organizations Are Now Leftist… and becoming more Leftist – just to varying degrees.
There is no significant organization outside The System; and The System is Leftist.
That is what ‘totalitarianism’ means.
In a perverse way, the censorship today’s essay describes is, perhaps, one logical endpoint of largely unfettered capitalism. It’s important to note that monopoly was often defended by paleo-conservatives, libertarians and other small-government advocates. Government meddling in private affairs, including the market, was to be minimized. But what about corporate meddling in government responsibilities to a free society? Quasi-monopolies of information, publishing and even many types of commerce enjoy freedoms of action forbidden to government. For authoritarians in government (mostly of the leftist flavor, but as our host notes, abridgement of rights is abridgement of rights, no matter which extreme of politics it emanates from) and super-rich individuals and their corporations, that is nearly ideal. The government claims it’s not crimping anyone’s rights, while the corporations need merely point to their terms of service.
I’d be interested to know where the idea of the market as a private thing came from. The agora was understood as a public space. The Constitution has the commerce clause. The government takes a cut of most transactions. So how is the market a private thing?
It’s not. The distinction is between private and public property, and that distinction is based on funding. A road built with public funds is a public road. A road built with one person’s guns is a private driveway. Likewise, a strip mall built with taxpayer funds would be a public market, but a strip mall built with one man’s funds is a private market.
But when we use a sovereign currency (or whatever they’re called) to conduct transactions, we’re playing in the public sandbox. It’s all taxed and regulated.
Admittedly I’m kind of dumb on economics, but the only ‘free market’ I can think of is barter. Even black markets that use money are subject to some degree to taxation and regulation by virtue of using money.
Point being, commerce is a public thing. Money and markets are created to facilitate it. Commerce and collective defense are probably why the state exists in the first place. Imo it’s unclear that they can be separated.
If you argue that, “using money makes the place where money is used public and therefore subject to government scrutiny and management,” you have to also argue that that writing a check to pay your electric bill entitles government agents to examine your home on a whim and manage your relationship with your spouse. Hence why the distinction is primarily between public and private ownership of property. This point of distinction also allows for a lot of flexibility in managing public behavior, since it allows private entities to first exclude people for any reason they want, and also to make exceptions if they so choose. It’s a two-edged sword, to be sure, but the point of the first amendment is that regulating speech is not a federal matter. This doesn’t mean that speech should go unregulated altogether, only that whatever regulations that are to exist will be made and enforced by some entity or entities other than the federal government.
Like I say, I’m kind of dumb on economics. I say ‘markets’ when I mean ‘commerce’, although it seems like most others make the same mistake.
Commerce, like speech, is a behavior. Behavior can be regulated. One’s thoughts are one’s property. That’s called freedom of conscience. Regulating behavior needn’t violate property rights.
Free speech is like free trade.
Also, re: private markets. It’s like the talk of declaring social media a public utility. Lots of gray area and conflicting interests, but ultimately not unlike the Greek attitude towards the agora.
Finally (apologies for being long-winded), not certain but it seems to me money is the property of whoever issues it. It’s leased out and comes with certain rights reserved for the owner. That’s a whole other can of worms! Render unto Caesar, etc.
This piece touches on a few of the basics.
https://mises.org/wire/markets-are-peaceful-state-not
I once emailed Gary North, asking him to explain the market. He kindly replied that I should think of it as an auction house where one person brings a gun, meaning the state 🙂
Anyway, thanks, I’ll check it out.
” … a strip mall built with taxpayer funds would be a public market, but a strip mall built with one man’s funds is a private market.”
All true. But if I invite, let’s say camping enthusiasts, to camp in my back yard or some other property belonging to me, and they *do* it, from whence comes my right to throw them out when thy do something I don’t like?
Freakbook invited the entire world to camp out on their property. When some people did something they didn’t like, they tossed ’em out.
Terms of Service? Please. They are worded in general terms; they have to be b/c no document like that can envision every possible event, let alone write them all down.
So in the end, the people who interpret the ToS have carte blanche to censor the people whom they themselves have invited to use their property. They need only recite the Words of Power: “terms of service” or “community standards,” by which the word “community” means the people doing the censorship.
It’s a racket based on word games.
Interesting point, Ben. Nothing to add, but something for my brain to chew over this very eve.
Yes, and for most of my life I fell into this trap too. The fear of communism was much more engrained in my psyche as a child than the fear of “fascism”. I took it for granted that the government was inefficient and because the government also has control of the guns, it had tremendous power that could be easily abused by bad people.
I was convinced that the private market was a much more moral place for most of our daily lives to be centered. Companies can’t make laws and force things upon people. Private markets offer choices and competing ideas. 50 years ago these “truths” were actually TRUE for the most part. It is still bizarre to me how everything has become so perverted now. Companies de facto make laws when they force service agreements and licenses upon us to use their products. There are no longer choices or competing ideas. Our choice now is “buy Post oat cereal and get advertising lectures about white privilege or buy Kellogg’s oat cereal and get advertising lectures about white privilege. Work for Wal-Mart and attend mandatory diversity training or work for Target and attend mandatory diversity training. The only diversity between any of these products or companies is deciding if they’re going to use a lesbian interracial couple in their marketing campaign or a gay male interracial couple.
Instead of the dull, stark, drab gray landscape of the Soviet Union, we have the opposite but equally repulsive neon rainbow landscape and sensory overload of diversity. Either way leads to an alienating culture of suspicion and distrust.
The answer to this dilemma is to “starve the beast.” As a practical matter, it should be far easier to boycott corporate actors than the government. The latter has a monopoly on legalized violence and three-letter goons (looking at you IRS) to enforce it. All the corporate actors have is our discomfort at withdrawal from their highly marketed, frequently addictive, goods — many of which are grandparents and their ancestors managed to live satisfactory lives without.
In other words, if you’re still shaving with Gillete or posting on FB or watching sportsball, you need to unplug. Pay a little more to get your hair cut by Sam the barber and not at Supercuts. Ditto for your pizza, your garden rake or box of nails, and any other daily “votes” against woke Globohomo corporations. Make bankruptcy real. Make the government subsidies that keep Bezos and Musk afloat more obvious. While I’d feel bad for the trucker just trying to feed his family, if I never saw another Amazon Prime truck with that vapid smile logo motoring the freeway, I’d positively rejoice.
Don’t tighten your belts because TPTB say we must bear $6/gal. gas and $20/lb. ribeye for the sake of poor oppressed Ukraine. Do it to steel yourself in the resolve to shun the corporate blandishments and enticements that fuel your oppression.
“Any organization that does business with leftists eventually is consumed by or destroyed by leftists.”
Remember this and take heart every time you see a blackface advertisement or get cancelled for being white.
Also, the free speech movement is one of those things I’m aware of but can’t wrap my head around, so completely victorious it must’ve been.
“It is why the Antifa types are anti-speech. They are illiberal and authoritarian. These are people who make various claims to communism, Marxism and even anarchism, but embrace the unfettered use of corporate power to suppress speech.”
Something I and likely many others have noticed is that internet anarchists are extremely pro-establishment power, there is a bunch of non-sense like Anarcho-Capitalism, Anarcho-Zionism or even Anarcho-NATOism (anarchist who love NATO?!). The feeling I get is that the Anarchist movement like Antifa is heavily astroturfed by the alphabet soup agencies to hurt real alternatives movements from both Left and Right to gain more adderance among the young.
All the self-identified anarchists that I’ve ever met have been utter morons. Morons who indulge in their fantastical ideology as the nearest cell mast relays the latest Facebook group update, the sewer treatment system goes to work on their recently flushed turd, and the global financial transaction network allows them to swipe their watch and buy their next craft brew.
As far as the ACLU and Skokie they weren’t being noble free speech advocates by supporting the nazis right to protest. It was in their best interest to let these cartoon characters march through the streets like the idiots they were.
George Carlin being oh so bold and brave fighting for the seven words. He never did a follow up on diversity epithets, wonder why.
In Carlin’s defense, in his later years, he expressed disdain for what he labeled the “left-wing paternalism” of political correctness. I would call it maternalism myself. Nevertheless, whatever his faults, Carlin was a consistent defender of free speech.
They also had to promote a “one rule for all” at the time. The “left” had been marching and protesting for years. Americans at the time believed what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Today, it means free speech for me, not for you. The ACLU couldn’t tip their hand that early. Remember, these people play the long game.
Actually one of his later albums dealt with this. The skit started off with him going through a list of slang terms for every non-American group out there. He finished it with, “Everyone’s a racist in this country! This group hates that group, this religion hates that one!” so there was that.
Free speech as currently understood is a chimera and I oppose both this faulty concept and its progenitor of Western ‘liberalism’. I do support limited authoritarianism, up to a point, because there is no other way to cleanse a people immersed in decades of falsehood and debauchery. And if I were ever to live in a White ethnostate, I would want those inclined to believe in sexual perversion and inversions of reality muzzled. Ideally, such creatures would have no audience and/or would be roundly mocked, but there will always be weak-minded people and those who want to break rules or push boundaries. There must be limits placed on the inherent destructiveness of man’s fallen nature.
it’s not a simple straight forward issue. nothing is, where people are involved.
Because of emotions. We aren’t Vulcans and never will be. The rational, scientific society is a unicorn.
I will exercise my free speech and eulogize the death of Clintonista Madeleine Albright.
To paraphrase Bette Davis:
One should not speak bad of the dead, only good.
Madeline Albright is dead.
Good.
Swiss Guard: Or, as I emailed my husband when I first read of her death, “Not sad.”
Best guess on what circle of hell she’ll inhabit?
I vote for Bolgia, the 8th circle, for fraudulent counselors. Though, on further pondering, that 9th ring is mighty appealing!
We think the price is worth it.
I play a lot of guitar and sing in bars, and that usually involves some complimentary drinks as well as audience-encouraged beers to pump up sales. I learned early on that while performing, I can have max two beers before I notice a degradation in my memory and crisp fingering (that’s what she said) – I save my house drinks for after and usually have the bartender comp me beers instead of actually drinking the audience-purchased beers.
i was a busboy in a restaurant with an active bar, that had live performers Thurs – Sun. and those guys scored like crazy. shooting fish in a barrel had a lower success rate.
Free Speech as a corner stone of a free society has always largely been a con job. Every society, including America at every point in history, has some topics and phrases that are verboten in all but the most intimate settings. In earlier points of time in America the range of such topics was narrower than in other places and now. But it still existed.
The push to expand “free speech” in the 1960s was an element in the then left’s design to destroy America as it existed at the time. They used the same lever to do so as they used with racial relations ie claiming to fight the hypocrisy.
Everyone, always falls short of their ideals. The point of have ideals is to work towards something, not achieve it. So yes America at the time fell short of the ideals of equality and freedom, but was still better than any comparable society. But the left turned all that on its head by claiming to fight the hypocrisy of falling short of ideals. And did so by pushing the implementation to ridiculous extremes.
So freedom of association had to go to push equality. And sensible restrictions on speech such as pornography or advocating the destruction of the system likewise had to go. Same with the common law brake on libel and slander. Neutering those turned the lefts’ “journalism” organs into powerful weapons damaging society.
Now sixty years on, the left has overwhelming won. And so, the tools they used to achieve that victory are a threat to them and will destroyed.
The purpose of free speech was permitting peaceful dissent against the government. It was never the idea that words should never have consequences.
All of the Constitutional rights were restrictions on government power. Not government-secured entitlements like they are now.
This. The only unalienable, God-given rights are to life, liberty and “the pursuit of happiness” (often concretized as “property”).
You can sell any the so-called rights in the US Constitution for a mess of pottage. Indeed, everyone who unhesitatingly, often without even reading them, clicks on the ToS to access Twitter or FB or any tech-based service does just that. In dealing with police, you can waive your right to a search warrant and consent to a search without probable cause or you can waive your right to remain silent and participate in the interrogation. This rarely serves your interest, but a shocking number of people do it every day and willingly cooperate with the government against their own interest.
The only purpose of the US Constitution is to restrain government action. Its purpose is effectuated only when people demand limited government. Sadly, the thirteen original states have evolved into a continental land mass populated by a debased society that either lacks the force parity to back up that demand or has degraded to such a state of dependency that they now want to cast off any restraints to government in the vain hope that it will use the vastly expanded power to gratify their desires, both material and spiritually perverse. Just as you have no right to free speech, they have no right to a welfare check or to so-called gay marriage. At this point, it is all a farce.
“You have people who want an authoritarian state, but also say they want free speech. Free expression is inextricably bound up in liberal governance. You cannot have a liberal society in the Western sense without free expression and you cannot have illiberal government with it. Free expression is the cornerstone of the liberal society.”
Stop!
Free speech and “free expression” are *not* the same things.
We know that because we remember how the term “free expression” was used by (((plaintiffs))) in lawsuits to get the courts to prevent communities–all communities everywhere–from protecting public morality in their own midst.
(((The lawyers))) successfully argued that free *speech* and free *expression* are one and the same. That opened the door to nude pole-dancing in public places, and to vulgarities and even obscenities of every kind on public airwaves, the argument there having been that the airwaves belong to the public, which, in practice, meant (((the public))).
I was there.
Yes, we remember (((Lenny Bruce))). We remember *precisely* what he meant by “free speech.” There are probably You Tube vids for those too young to remember that (((turd))).
Conflating “free speech” with “free expression” opened to door to further lawsuits that made blasphemy laws “unconstitutional.”
And so on.
But until that time, “free speech” had been understood to mean *political* speech, the idea being that one could publicly oppose one’s government, although obscenity and even commonplace vulgarity was *not* permitted because people were not confused about the plain meaning of words or about correct behavior in public.
And while one was perfectly free to speak openly against the government, slander was a punishable offense. People in those days were not confused by talmudic arguments. There was a *strong* tradition that ordinary people understood, and they understood the *proper* use and *intent* of “free speech.”
Until the 1960s, Americans had been quite free–we even FELT free–although local laws forbade the recently popular “slut-walks” and blasphemy, and on-stage nudity and vulgarity of innumerable kinds on TV, on stages, and in public venues like night clubs and others.
It is *not* true that free expression is the same thing at free speech. Those of us who lived through all of that–and who now behold the fruits of conflating speech with “expression”–know that quite well.
To quote Samuel Adams: “How strangely will the tools of a tyrant pervert the plain meaning of words!”
And every tyrant has his (((tools))). I myself have seen it and lived through it. I know exactly how we got to where we are today.
“Expression” does *not* mean “speech” exclusively.
If you listen to the show, you will see that I address this. Splitting hairs between free expression and free speech is a fool’s errand. What matters is the limits and the clarity of those limits. If I post a rule here that says you cannot use a list of racial epithets or their equivalents, that is a clear rule that everyone can respect. You cannot use the N-word or some novel spelling of it is easy to understand.
What this does is put limits on both the speaker and the censor. The speaker knows what is not permitted and the censor knows what he can suppress. The only question is who decides the limits. The rule here is has always been community standards, which naturally excludes corporate actors from the process. Speech limits are set by the people through custom and their lawful representatives in the state.
Damn, Z. You posted my comment for me. Admittedly, you’re more clear and concise, but it’s the same idea.
Freedom of speech as enshrined in the Constitution was simply a writing down of the cultural values of the Anglo-Saxons who settled in America.
All law flows from the cultural values of the community and culture, of course, flows from biology. Normie Cons don’t understand this. They think that the Constitution has magical powers, the power to permanently change the cultures of other ethnic and racial groups to the American Anglo-Saxon culture and the power to defend itself against any group that wants to impose its cultural values on the United States.
Normie Cons don’t understand community standards because they – like the Left – believe that humans are malleable lumps of clay that can be transformed into anything with the right cultural indoctrination. Therefore, community standards follow the law, not the other way around, in their minds.
“Splitting hairs between free expression and free speech is a fool’s errand.”
I have to disagree b/c that is *precisely* the legal argument used–successfully–to destroy the entire tradition of free speech.
Thank you for your reply.
It worked because it is a distraction. The issue to focus on is the limits and who decides those limits. Getting into Talmudic arguments about the difference between speech and expression allowed the bad guys to answer those two questions.
In essence, who runs the show.
Heritage Americans forgot the purpose of the law, which is to make explicit the cultural values of the community – the ruling community. They thought that the law could change the culture of the new arrivals.
They were wrong.
The down vote is mot from me.
Down vote #2 was from me though.
EXACTLY. And it is the destruction of community that has enabled pretty much ALL of our evils. You can see it everywhere, and we just cannot reconstruct community, it is not possible.
Technology and mass third world immigration makes community impossible, and the alternatives are the corporate substitute: Disney Nation or Apple or Nike, being respectively gay gay gay now, upper class SJW, or black replacing actual real physical communities. See also sportsball teams, political parties, etc.
Chuck Palahniuk (sp?) in Fight Club posits a work around, its not particularly tenable, Trump tried his and was crushed.
I honestly don’t have an answer.
One of the tools the left used to destroy American culture was conflating action with speech. As in free speech became free expression. So burning a flag – which is an action – was protected as free speech. Of course burning a pile of leaves was not so protected, even if the person doing so was motivated by some by protesting something, because reasons – shut up.
The inverse of that conflation is now being used by the left to attack American culture. When actions are conflated with speech, it intuitively follows that speech is conflated with actions. So hateful speech become a tort every bit as much as battery – unwanted touching. And from there it’s a short step to banning such ‘hate speech’ for the same reasons that assault and battery are crimes.
And so, Expanding the definition of speech inexorably led to restricting free speech.
“Expanding the definition of speech inexorably led to restricting free speech.”
And that is precisely how (((they))) did it.
And yes, it *was* (((they))).
Every step of the way–from start to finish.
Make you a deal: if you can take a punch to the face without crying you can have license to use parenthetical brackets to refer to Jews. Two punches is required to be indirect about them. Three punches and at least a missing tooth if you insist everything is some master plan.
This has been taken to the illogical and absurd extreme by the modern leftists in the form of “Your speech is VIOLENCE.”— Umm, WTF? No, me smashing your face into hamburger is violence.
When you completely muddy the relationship between speech & expression (action) then making such Orwellian claims just gets that much easier. I believe this war largely by design if we follow The Infant Phenom’s initial line of reasoning.
Our violence is free expression! (Free speech, to include burning down cities, assault, looting, and even murder)
–Your– speech is violence!
Jooish subversion & trickery at its finest and the useful idiots eat it up like seed corn.
So if I burn Lenny Bruce in effigy, is that free expression, or free speech?
Not only is speech “violence,” but so is “silence.”
So you’re not only restricted in what you can say, you’re forced to parrot the “party line” also.
“Your speech is VIOLENCE.”
It’s even more insane than that. During the “take-a-knee” summer, we learned that “silence is violence.”
There is much truth in what you’ve written. Even so, you might wish to consult a history book and see just how much political speech was tolerated early on (Alien and Sedition Acts), President Lincoln’s curious treatment of dissenters during the Civil War, or various laws outlawing certain types of speech during WW II. Unless I’m mistaken, those three cited instances deal completely with political speech, not deviancy, obscenity, and so forth. Perhaps, wartime makes it OK to trample rights? It certainly does, in our history. Yes, these restrictions were invalidated sooner or later, so far as I know. But the mere fact that they ever existed at all, is proof that our rights are always subject to being wished away whenever it suits the government’s needs.
Heh. Me and the wife will listen to the show later, but concerning free speech:
When I was younger, it seemed to make sense to me; but this was when both sides could at least act in good faith toward one another. Think about monetary policy, for example, as something that two sides could present pretty oppositional ideas, but still shake hands at the end of it. Then again, perhaps monetary policy is a bad example. But the subject being discussed plays a part, as it may be fashionable (climate hysteria) or not (techniques in synthetic aperture RADAR). Fashionable subjects are always politicized and hence real debate becomes rather difficult.
As I grew up I reasoned about what I thought I would like in a society – and more so now that I have a family of my own. Do I really want degenerate Pride marches because ‘free speech’? Or a murder of Antifa marching about how bad whites are? Or a group of men marching for their rights to diddle little boys? The examples seem over the top… yet we see this all the time. It became obvious that if ‘free speech’ were to be tolerate at all, it ought to pose no obvious threat.
In short: we can probably never have it. It will always be subverted. Only a homogenous and responsible populace (likely Christian) can handle it, and even then it is open to subversion. To stop it becomes even harder as a society scales and diversifies.
I don’t really like the idea of authoritarianism as I’ve grown up with the pleasures of liberal democracy. But to be honest, if I could restore the social capital that we once had at the cost of some of my ‘freedoms’, I would. Oddly enough, when finding God again, and realizing that we’re all The Christ’s servants anyhow, it made me care less and less about free speech.
“In short: we can probably never have it. It will always be subverted.”
But we DID have it. For more than two centuries. And, yes, it was (((subverted))). No getting around THAT.
We used to have *adults* in the general population. But Talmudic mind-f**kery has infantilized everything and almost everybody. And it took very little time.
Being an adult implies and *requires* the ability to make sound judgments.
The list of speech in which you could not publicly engage in the first two centuries of US history was quite long, and mostly administered locally. Meanwhile the sorts of speech in which one could engage then, but not now — prayer in schools, religious monuments on public grounds, fot example was also remarkable.
The societal standard used to include a concept called, “the closet,” for many good reasons.
Yes.
There were numerous items that everybody knew happened, it’s just they were closeted and not promoted as normal.
Homosexuality is something I find disgusting. However, it exists in society and so it goes; if it poses minimal threat to the moral order, then it is ‘allowed’ – that is, not promoted as normal and taught to be abnormal.
But that closet’s been busted way open now, and every freak show on the planet has escaped… Imagine the video game Doom, but instead of being flooded by demons from hell it’s degenerates; mark you, I’d look at them as one and the same.
The closet says, “from “the love that dare not say its name” to “the love that just won’t shut up”
“The closet says, “from “the love that dare not say its name” to “the love that just won’t shut up”
Comment of the day!
“a murder of Antifa”
Positively Shakespearean!