December 16, 2018
As everyone is aware, I am a champion of free speech.
However, when I speak of “free speech,” I am speaking of the political definition of it, as has been accepted for hundreds of years, and which is outlined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment.
What I am not speaking of is “obscenity,” which is not political speech, and has never been considered political speech. Multiple Supreme Court rulings have shown that the First Amendment does not protect obscenity, which is a separate category. And technically, obscenity is still legal in most of America, but Jews have successfully argued that pornography and other things – including rap music – is not actually obscenity.
Russia has – in my opinion, wrongly – banned certain forms of political speech. I disavow this. However, Putin’s plan to regulate rap music is completely unrelated, and this I fully avow. In fact, I would avow an outright ban on rap music, not only in Russia but also in America.
There simply is no excuse for this material.
Funnily enough, the Western Jewish media is attacking Putin over this, even while these same Jewish publications support silencing my speech, along with that of Alex Jones, Gavin McInnes and everyone else in America whom they hate.
Their view is that it is good to promote drug use to children in Russia (and America), but that it is pure evil to allow people in America to disagree with their politics.
Alarmed by the growing popularity of rap among Russian youth, President Vladimir Putin wants cultural leaders to devise a means of controlling, rather than banning, the popular music.
Putin says “if it is impossible to stop, then we must lead it and direct it.”
But Putin said at a St. Petersburg meeting with cultural advisers Saturday that attempts to ban artists from performing will have an adverse effect and bolster their popularity.
This appears to be true.
Putin noted that “rap is based on three pillars: sex, drugs and protest.” But he is particularly concerned with drug themes prevalent in rap, saying “this is a path to the degradation of the nation.”
He said “drug propaganda” is worse than cursing.
Putin’s comments come amid a crackdown on contemporary music that evoked Soviet-era censorship of the arts.
I don’t think that is actually what it is evoking, and even if it was, I don’t think that would be bad.
Telling people they cannot promote drug use because it degrades the nation is hardly something that any reasonable person can disagree with. What exactly is the argument?
In America, in the 1960s, when all of these musicians started promoting drug use to teenagers, there was no actual explanation for why this was a good idea, because there was no one to question it other than Christians, and the Christians – although their hearts were certainly in the right place – did not make very moving arguments.
It was all “this is bad because no one has ever done this before and we have rules saying that this is a bad thing, please check the Bible for further reference.”
They could have made scientific arguments, but they were not prepared to make that sort of argument, because it had never been necessary before. Because before, they did not have Jews. Before, they were able to make moral arguments based on an historical standard of values.
Whatever you think of Christianity, it has a solid moral system which CAN ABSOLUTELY be defended using scientific arguments.
These things are objectively bad:
- Teenage drug use
- Teenage sexual promiscuity
- The collapse of the family
- Female empowerment
- Racial integration
- Destruction of beauty
And there are solid areligious arguments against all of these things.
The Jews however were able to make Christians in the 1960s look stupid by pointing out that they did not have areligious arguments prepared as a defense against the Jewish onslaught.
I hope that Russia is prepared to make areligious, scientific arguments for regulating the promotion of these forms of social degradation. And I think they probably are, not in small part because the Soviet Union was areligious and was able to make these arguments from a position of “what is objectively good for society.”