When you think about it, freedoms of speech, press, religion and assembly are basically the same thing with each term having tremendous overlap with the others. It’s no wonder they were listed together in 1A. Is freedom of the press not basically the same as freedom of speech? Given that most religions try to proselytize, is freedom of religion not basically the same as freedom of speech? Is freedom of assembly not basically the same as freedom of speech or freedom of religion? They all boil down to the freedom to push a certain idea publicly with each one having only a slightly different meaning.
Free speech, religion, press, assembly as it has commonly been interpreted in 1A is incompatible with sustaining an ordered civilization. You might be able to have it within a group of say, 100 high quality men, and I’m not convinced that wouldn’t eventually break down, but to extend it nationwide will never work. It has been experimented in America since 1789 and we have slipped downhill, bit by bit ever since. I’m not aware of any “right” to free speech in the old country, but it seems that the British have a long history of a long leash when it comes to speech.
I admit, I’ve waited a long time to write this post because I wanted to be able to propose a solution with respect to speech laws. Obviously we don’t want to live in some dystopian world of unreasonable censorship laws, but we cannot afford to cling to some kind of universalist philosophy on the matter.
Free speech is not Biblical, it’s not the way religious denominations work, not the way businesses work, not the way clubs work. It’s not even the way facebook groups work. I am a member of multiple facebook groups and I guarantee there are things I could say that would get me kicked out of those groups. There are things a minister could say that would get him defrocked by his denomination. There are things I could say at work that would get me fired from my job. I once attended a church that split over gossip. Some people
got kicked out decided to leave because the pastor wanted to get rid of the problem individuals once and for all, and he did right in my opinion to do so because the individuals in question were pure troublemakers. The church did just fine without them and soon recovered in membership.
I don’t even think an ordered family can afford to go full free speech. I once in passing overheard a mother telling her teen daughter “No, and that’s the last I want to hear about the matter.” I knew the family pretty well. I had also heard the father once say “The complaint department is closed.” Another good one I have heard is “My ears are not garbage cans.” Obviously this kind of response is pro-order, anti-free speech.
A “muh free speech” clinger necessarily must agree with the following:
- I support the right of Big TV to brainwash my children with faggotry and miscegenation propaganda.
- I support the right to sell (or ad sponsored) pornography.
- I support the right of websites that facilitate marital affair hookups.
- I support the right of moslims, Mormons and JWs to try to convert my children.
- I support the right of seducers to say whatever they want to my daughters in high school or college.
Now some may say “The answer to bad speech is more and better speech.” ie a counterargument. Now that might work within a small group of intelligent men that respect each other and actually seek truth over pet cause, but regarding society at large, my counterargument is that that is basically throwing away half of your immune system and expecting the remainder to fight twice as hard. A man might as well throw away his skin and rely on his white blood cells alone to combat infection. It just doesn’t work out that well in practice.
Many people think free speech is a contest of ideas where the best ideas win out in the end. They might liken it to a horse race where the fastest horse wins and that to find the fastest horse in the land, we should let all horses enter the race and see who wins. But it doesn’t work that way. Free speech really just gives the argument to whichever side is the most relentless and is willing to use rhetoric to win the simple minded.
Does anybody think the Big Gay Machine won out over sanity because it had the strongest arguments?
Does anybody think race denial won out over race realism because it had stronger arguments?
Does anybody think that feminism won out over patriarchy because it had stronger arguments?
A free speech environment is not a trial that favors the side with the strongest argument. It is an environment that favors the sneakiest, most manipulative, most relentless, most backstabbing, most intolerant side. It is not a contest of ideas; it is a contest of who shouts the longest and the loudest. If upon achieving a free Dixie, we turn around and sign up for freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly just like in 1789, then we might as well be signing Dixie’s suicide pact.
I don’t have a magic bullet proposal for replacing unshackled free speech. I wish I did, but I cannot accept “muh free speech is sacred” as a viable alternative, even in a white country. I am not aware of a successful (nationwide) working model in all human history. If we want to sustain a decent, ordered society in the future, then we simply must curtail these freedoms because if we don’t, the gay pride, miscegenation pride, cuck pride, slut pride, childless women pride parades won’t be far behind.