On Freedom of Speech as a Prerequisite of Civilization

I am a free speech absolutist in the purest sense, as I believe that freedoms, being a basic foundation of Western civilization, are necessary in order to continue Western civilization as we know it. It has become edgy, apparently, for some right-wingers to talk about how when “we’re in power” they will ban free speech, and I find this to be simply vile and an attack on everything that I am fighting for in the first place.

There are some basic limits on speech that I and all other pure free speech absolutists agree on, which are worth understanding in order to understand the larger agenda of free speech absolutism. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court has always defended the First Amendment and so given us a very good framework within which to discuss freedom of speech.

The Miller Test, based on a supreme court ruling about obscenity, should be applied to any “art” that appears obscene, as I believe it is fine and dandy. This is a way to analyze whether something is or is not “obscene,” based on its artistic merits (obviously, nothing that was purely political would ever be put to the test in the first place). Many things that fail the Miller Test probably should be outright banned, in my view. That would include all pornography, as well as a good bit of other entertainment media. But it’s so easy to prove artistic value in something that isn’t legitimately pornographic that I do not side with the Libertarians in that I do not think that material that doesn’t pass the Miller Test should have any form of legal protection. Some non-pornographic forms of vulgarity, such as some types of blasphemy, would also be subject to Miller Testing.

The ruling of Brandenburg v Ohio, which determines what degree of violent speech is allowed, is even dandier. Brandenburg was arguing for the theoretical killing of black people, but he did not specify a specific black or a specific time and place where these blacks should be killed, and it was ruled that in order for a violent statement to fall afoul of the First Amendment, a threat must be imminent and specific.

Also, I basically agree with libel laws, and might even agree with Trump that they don’t go far enough, though that’s something I haven’t put a huge amount of thought into. I do think it is wrong that people can go on the internet and accuse people of crimes and so on without any consequences, though I would really have to be more educated on the topic. Beyond that, I think copyright laws are too extreme, probably, though that is another place where I would have to be more informed really than I am now to say definitively.

Of course, that is neither here nor there with regards to the discussion at hand. I just wanted to get it out of the way, because retards on the internet will always say “YEAH WELL WHAT ABOUT PORNO THEN” – or “YEAH WHAT ABOUT” whatever else, whenever you say you’re a free speech absolutist, and that is literally a completely separate issue. Many retards on the internet think that the First Amendment is currently being applied to pornography, when it has repeatedly been ruled, for hundreds of years, that pornography is not covered by the First Amendment and we have a really good test to determine whether or not something is pornographic that the SCOTUS developed.

Sometimes when I reply that I believe in banning pornography, these people will act like they’ve got me and say “see… you just want to be the one who defines what is ‘free speech’… I read you…” – but no, this is all already defined. We have a legal system, that has existed for a very long time and goes all the way back to the Magna Carta and even Rome before that, and it has solutions to questions like “how can you have free speech without pornography?” It’s not a mystery, and we don’t need to litigate this, as some people on the internet want to do. This has already been fully litigated, and I am fully satisfied with the answers that have already been given. These edgy people do not know what they are talking about, but this is a site to help people know what they’re talking about.

To further clear up what I view as the bounds of speech, and kill as many “but what abouts” as possible, let me say that I have continuously called for journalists to be rounded up and charged with criminal conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). I have not called for this because of the ideas that they expressed, but because they have used their power to engage in sedition. Lying is not a crime, and people must be allowed to lie. However, when an entire network of liars get together and consciously plot to undermine the state using a web of lies, directly targeted at the population for this criminal purpose, you have exited the realm of speech and entered into the realm of racketeering. All of these various hoaxes, from the Russian hoax, to the impeachment hoax, to the coronavirus hoax, have been purposeful conspiracies against the population and our elected president, with the express goal of transforming society for their own ends. What’s more, they have also aggressively used intimidation and bullying to censor and chill the speech of those who question their agenda. Both the Daily Stormer and Infowars were censored as a result of a targeted campaign by the media, primarily because we were telling the truth about the hoaxes they were promoting. CNN threatened to dox someone for making a meme, and news organizations have repeatedly doxed various people who questioned them, again showing that they are functioning as a criminal racket rather than a group simply giving opinions. This is a unique situation that would never apply to any single individual giving his opinions on something, but it is worth noting that when I call for the media to be arrested I am not saying this because of the lies they are promoting, but rather because they are using a monopolisitc network of lies to undermine the president and the nation.

There is literally no argument for restricting political speech, and the single reason you would do it is if you were afraid of what people were saying. There has never been any instance, ever, where right wingers have had power and needed to censor speech. At least not in a white country – arguably the current government of China is “right wing” in a basic sense, and they censor criticism of the government. But that is the only thing they censor, meaning Chinese have a whole helluva lot more freedom of speech than we have. China also allows 100% open academic inquiry, which is completely banned in the West. China is also moving out of hardline communism into a more open social order and tending to allow more speech as they progress. Anyway, Chinese have a completely different social framework they exist in, which developed from a totally different biology, which prizes servitude much above individuality, so comparisons there can only go so far.

When it comes to societies based on the Western, white tradition rooted in classical Greece, political censorship is always a sign of a society in decline, where a corrupt elite is attempting to hold onto power by manipulating the masses of people through crooked means. It’s filthy and it’s wrong, and people who cannot tolerate dissenting opinions do not deserve to rule.

Censored ideas become more appealing if they are censored, which is why Antifa literally pretends that people want to censor them when they don’t, and also why the Jews allowed right-wing free speech up until they didn’t. This is also why they still have designated people, such as Richard Spencer, who they continue to allow on social media in order to give an illusion that free speech still exists. It is probably not a coincidence that Spencer himself has spoken out against freedom of speech, claiming to be a Machiavellian mastermind who will enforce his will on the people when he is crowned emperor.

Whenever one gets to the discussion of a certain nonsensical hoax that was alleged to have happened in Europe in the middle of the last century, the best starting point is always: “you know that they put people in prison for Holocaust denial in Europe, right?” That is very powerful, and will make anyone stop and think. It is certainly much more powerful than trying to explain the math, or the historical record, or whatever else. People fundamentally understand that you do not need to lock people up for saying something which the state claims can be easily disproved. Of course, as we have discovered, the only reason that Holocaust denial is illegal in Europe is that if it wasn’t, people would come to the conclusion that it in fact did not happen. Even in Germany and Austria, where any promotion of Nazism had been banned since just after the war, laws against “Holocaust denial” did not come into effect until the early 1990s. And what happened just around that time period?

In 1989, the Berlin Wall came down, and the old Eastern Bloc was put on the path towards opening back up. This would allow for people to go to Poland and examine the grounds of these alleged “Nazi death camps.” Obviously, certain people knew that this would create problems, as the ashes of the millions of alleged dead would not be found there, which would cause the entire myth to collapse in on itself and go up like different colors of smoke from a chimney. What I am trying to communicate here is that they did not enact this law until it was absolutely necessary to keep the masses of people from declaring this event to be a hoax. They know how bad this looks.

Everyone fundamentally understands that if you censor an idea or a piece of information, it means you fear it. People who are confident in their beliefs do not need to censor, and they welcome those who would challenge them, as it gives them a chance to prove just how right they are.

I am afraid of no argument, because I am fully confident that I am right. I am ready and willing to defend everything I believe to anyone who challenges it. You want people in power who are able to do the same. If your leaders are incapable of explaining why they have a right to be in power, then again, they absolutely should not be in power. I think that some people have a strange fantasy about a right-wing government based on some dumb Hollywood version of the Nazis where there really is a brutal authoritarianism. The fact is that the people who talk about this are the people who would like it the least, as they talk about it generally because they are anti-social. They would quickly become casualties of this kind of cartoonish Nazi system.

Despite what some internet Nazi cringelords believe, when we talk about “Western civilization,” we are not talking about Greek statues or Beethoven. We’re talking about a catalog of thought which allowed for the development of a peaceful and just society wherein such art could be made. The basic framework of any civilization is ideas (which is why I noted that comparisons with China are always going to be difficult), and one of the most fundamental ideas of Western civilization is that men are born free, and the primary purpose of the state is to protect that freedom. In fact, the entire structure of the government, and the military even, exist for the purpose of protecting freedom.

The system that we have now is not really identifiable as “Western civilization” for the specific reason that the underlying ideas have been replaced with foreign Jewish ideas. When I hear someone say “when we get into power, we’ll censor them!”, it strikes me that they are talking about applying these Jewish ideas in their own government, which would ensure that it too would not qualify as “Western civilization.”

There is simply no way to have a system that is just if those in power are not accountable to the masses of people. Tyranny is not conducive to any kind of creativity, which is the engine of civilization. In order to be creative and productive, men must be free.

I am not fighting for a society that would restrict my freedoms, and if that is what you are fighting for, then I consider you an enemy.