November 10, 2018
Reading about the recent extraordinary measures to shut down democratieparticipative.biz, a French website that is very similar to the Daily Stormer, I was considering the nature of political censorship.
The basic fact of the matter is that as soon as you even suggest political censorship, you have admitted that you have lost the battle of ideas. It is a brutal authoritarian measure that is only used when a regime is backed up against the wall, and can no longer justify its own existence. It is really as simple as that.
The straightforwardness of this reality leads to those who censor political speech jumping through all different sorts of illogical hoops, traversing all manner of irrational mazes to try and justify their acts, apparently to the end of making the situation as confusing as possible so as to distract from the obviously desperate nature of the censorship act.
“This is Hateful”
The goto line when censoring political speech is that it is “hateful.”
Hate is an emotion characterized by intense dislike for something.
It would be absurd for me to have to point out that the censorship-crazy left is defined by hate. If I did that, I might even have to note that the act of censorship itself is hateful.
It would be like saying “water is wet” to have to say that the mainstream Jewish media does virtually nothing at all other than express its loathing, detestation, dislike, distaste, resentment, aversion, hostility and ill will towards Donald J. Trump and towards the entire white race, our culture, our history and our identity.
This is a plain, obvious fact, which no one needs to point out to anyone.
Outlawing certain emotions is completely deranged and maniacal.
But obviously, they aren’t trying to outlaw the emotion of hate – they are attempting to regulate the direction in which that particular sentiment is allowed to flow.
This is not “love speech”:
If any speech which expresses dislike for an individual or group of individuals is outlawed, then politics itself can no longer exist. The very concept of politics is people with different views opposing one another because they find certain views and behaviors distasteful.
“Mean Words Hurt People’s Feelings”
When the Daily Stormer became the most censored publication in all of history, with several new types of censorship being invented to keep people from viewing the site, the ostensible reason for this conspiracy that spanned multiple different industries, hundreds of companies and dozens of governments was that I made a fat joke that was just so mean it couldn’t possibly be allowed to stand.
All sorts of things are offensive to all sorts of people. I find the concept of men masturbating into each other’s anuses extremely offensive. I find the idea of women murdering their own children emotionally unsettling.
Furthermore, I find the continual calls to kill and otherwise disenfranchise white men to be threatening and despicable.
But while I do not think men should be legally allowed to masturbate into each other’s anuses or that women should be allowed to murder their own children, nor do I think that white men deserve to be exterminated, I also do not think that people should be allowed to crash cars into other cars and cause obese women to have heart attacks.
There is a difference between actions and speech.
Note that European laws against “Holocaust denial” are also based on the theory that it should be illegal to say things that might hurt someone’s feelings.
“Speech Causes People to Commit Violence”
In the wake of last month’s synagogue shooting, the argument to shut down free speech was that words on the internet caused the shooter to kill Jews.
This gets into a type of hypnotism theory of some sort that doesn’t make clear sense to me, even as I have spent a good deal of time trying to understand it. Legislating political speech based on the concept that someone is able to control another person’s actions by sharing ideas with them would necessarily, if taken to its logical conclusion, lead to a total shutdown on all forms of political speech.
And that is the case with all of these arguments – if taken to their logical conclusion, no one would ever be able to say anything.
The entire history of the Western legal tradition is based on people being responsible for their own actions. If we decided to remove that standard, and make the claim that people who talk to other people are responsible for their actions, then we would have a situation where entire groups of people are responsible for the actions of people they do not even know whenever anyone does anything.
Furthermore, the SPLC’s “Hate Map” hitlist has been used for two different high profile shootings. I won’t even say something like “imagine if the Daily Stormer kept a map of synagogues which included Tree of Life, Pittsburgh,” because that is too obvious of a point to make.
“Allowing People to Express Differing Viewpoints Could Change People’s Minds”
The only people who are actually honest about their desire to silence others are Antifa, who openly say that they want to shut down the speech of the opposition because if they don’t, more people will agree with it.
Professor Mark Bray, a historian and lecturer at Dartmouth and author of “Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook,” told Meet the Press last year:
Anti-fascists are illiberal. They don’t see fascism or white supremacy as a view with which they disagree as a difference of opinion. They view organizing against them as a political struggle where the goal is not to establish a regime of rights that allow neo-Nazis and victims to coexist and exchange discourse, but rather the goal is to end their politics.
The anti-fascist argument is that any amount of white supremacist or neo-Nazi organizing is worthy of emergency consideration — by no means can we allow this to take one step farther. Trump in office obviously from their perspective exacerbates this situation and empowers them and helps them to grow, but even if Hillary Clinton were in office, anti-fascists would still want to block the advance of…any of these kind of small little Nazi groups.
This admission by Jewish Antifa groups really gives the lie to the rest of the Jewish arguments. They are saying: “if we don’t shut down the ability of these people to speak, they will convince others of their positions.”
They play some games with it, saying that attacking people they disagree with is “self defense,” but they don’t try very hard. They are pretty much just honest about the fact that right-wing arguments appeal to people, so they must be silenced so that the left can flourish.
Free Speech is Guaranteed by the UN
It is not just the First Amendment of the United States Constitution that is being violated by the Jewish censorship machine.
The United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right.
I don’t particularly care what the UN has to say about any particular issue, but the fact is that in 1948, this global organization which was intended to become a world government established in one of their founding documents that people have a right to freedom of thought and freedom of speech, and they have since revoked that right completely.
This demonstrates that they do not follow their own stated principles when they come in conflict with their agenda. It also demonstrates that they feel they are backed against a wall, and are resorting to brutal forms of oppression in order to attempt to keep control of the global situation.
My Own View
I have been and will always be a free speech absolutist.
Just to be clear – though I think it is already clear by the context of the discussion – I do not include obscenity in that definition. But no judge has ever made the argument that the First Amendment of the US Constitution applies to obscenity, and pornography and so on has been legalized through other means (conversely, the UN’s Universal Declaration has been interpreted to justify pornography, and may in fact justify child pornography).
Although Richard Spencer has done a lot of great work, one of his worst moments was stating that he opposes free speech, and simply argues for free speech as a way to trick the public so he can eventually silence free speech.
That particular quote has been spread all around and used to argue that the Alt-right is against freedom of speech.
I think the Daily Stormer has played a much larger role in formulating the general ideology of the Alt-Right than Richard Spencer has, and I hate that we have been associated with this horrible quote.
If your views are factually correct, you have absolutely nothing to fear from opposition speech.
A Seditious Conspiracy to Undermine the Public and Undermine the Government While Actively Silencing All Opposition is Not Free Speech
What we have now with the mainstream media is a situation that is more complicated than free speech. The mainstream media has become a monolithic entity that purposefully and knowingly spreads lies with the goal of defrauding the people in order to overthrow the established order of society. This is a seditious conspiracy. Furthermore, the mainstream media is the key driving force in silencing all forms of speech that they disagree with.
While continually making gibberish allegations about the First Amendment – including that the First Amendment means it is illegal to disagree with CNN – they have served as a machine to silence legitimate protected speech through underhanded and illegal means.
They are far outside of the realm of promoting a viewpoint to push a political agenda, and I do think that this needs to be addressed by the government. However, it is not a First Amendment issue. This would be addressed with anti-trust laws and laws against sedition. The conspiracy to silence those who oppose them is not only anti-competitive, but also violates civil rights.
So I do believe that the views expressed by the mainstream media currently, even if being expressed disingenuously, should be legal, but the mechanism through which they act, and the systematic suppression of opposition, as well as the threatening and menacing way they intimidate and bully the public at large needs to be subject to criminal investigation.
I have absolutely zero doubt that if our team was able to speak freely and make our arguments using the same resources that are available to the mainstream media, we would win the argument.
The opposition doesn’t have any doubt about that either, which is why we are not allowed to speak.