Our right of free speech and free expression is under greater and more immediate threat than at any time since the late eighteenth century (when free speech was not universally accepted but we started moving in the right direction.) We should all, as grown ups, be aware that anything we say will offend somebody somewhere and so close our ears to the whining of the politically correct fascists, while exercising discretion according to the company we are in. At the present time however, there is a constant barrage of warnings that we must not say this or that, that we must refrain from hate speech, an offence for which the word of the accuser alone is sufficient evidence to convict and which, according to the UK Equalities Bill and European human rights law is anything that your accuser feels was meant in an offensive way.
One of the most dangerous trends in the English speaking world over the past few decades had been the hijacking of individuality by psychologists and politically correct thinkers. The ever growing army of shrinks like to tell us they study the human psyche and thus are qualified to tell us all how to live. One of the areas in which psychology has been most successful is in the suppression of free speech and freedom of though. We must never openly disagree with anybody as to do so is hostile and we must never criticise anybody’s beliefs because we may hurt their feelings.
Politically Correct attitudes try to dictate to us how we should behave
towards each other with the emphasis on not saying anything likely to cause offence (sic),which seriously inhibits our right to express opinions. Well let’s be straight, what doesn’t kill us makes us stronger and hurt feelings
never killed anybody. What the shrinks and trick cyclists and the hand wringing lefties and liberals have done is to target the weak and exploit their sentimentality by connecting it to that ludicrous 1960s stoner philosophy that posits if we all join hands and sing Kumbaya the world will be healed overnight.
I have always said, “Beware the terrible tyranny of the weak.” Give weak people the slightest sniff of power and they immediately become completely out of control in their abuse of it. Attach the authority of law to their politically correct ideas and very soon we are ruled by tyrannical wussiness. Consider some of the recent ideas of the Politically Correct Thought Police:
If a black person and a white person are involved in a dispute it is our moral duty to be on the side of the black person because the white person is obviously motivated by racism and has the benefit of “white privilege”;
Any verbal attack on or criticism of a homosexual is prompted by homophobia and is therefore a hate crime;
Children are not capable of wrongdoing and should not be punished;
The failure of tribal societies in the Third World to develop is entirely the fault of the west;
Any one person’s religious or spiritual beliefs are as good as anyone else’s if anyone else happens to be a western Christian and should be respected by western Christians. Bizarrely, according to this logic, there is no moral obligation for Muslims, Hindus or Shamanistic Animists to respect western values or Christian beliefs.
And so the idiocy goes on, the list is endless.
Most of the problems the developed world faces can be traced back to the fluffy thinking of weak, creepy, emotionally needy people. They feminised the hard men of the Trade Unions and now they whine when the dark forces of Capitalism trample the workers, they castrated the mavericks of politics and the press and now when we need leaders and people of vision we have only wimps and time serving careerists; the goats are being led by the sheep because it is soooo unfair that the weak, docile sheep should have to take second place in the pecking order to the smart, courageous, independent goats.
This political correct thinking, this tyranny of the weak has put the whole world out of kilter. We must learn to be strong again, to cope with adversity without running to a therapist, to overcome trauma without turning to a therapist. We must learn to emulate in ways appropriate to a high tech world on the verge of environmental meltdown how to emulate our ancestors who struggled to survive in a world that after the Ice Age was assailed by floods, volcanic eruption, earthquake and famine and who, equipped with tools and weapons made of wood, bone and stone competed for food against Woolly Mammoths, Sabre Tooth Tigers, Gry-Lions, Cave Bears (much bigger than Grizzlies,) Direwolves (such creatures, now confined to the fiction of Game or Thrones, were real and twice the size of a modern Timber wolf,) The Giant Hyenodon, and other prehistoric canine weighing in at up to 1000 pounds, and Giant Rhinos.
Would politically correct wusses singing Kumbaya be able to hack it in that Brave New World? I think not. And nor are they going to be equipped to live in the lawless dystopias that civilised nations will become should we fail to contain the lawless elements in society.
We even have limp — wristed wusses as our leaders now — and what tyrants they are turning out to be. From when I first started reading of Barack Obama I recognised in his vacuous words, in the speeches crammed with cliché and banalities that we were told was “soaring rhetoric”, a man of little ability with a huge desire for power. When it became apparent that he was being pushed towards the U S Presidency by the unseen political forces that really rule our planet, not The Illuminati, nor priests of some ancient sect sadly because I love a good conspiracy theory but ordinary men and women addicted to wealth and power and driven by enormous egos, a hyperactive sense of entitlement and a conviction that they are better equipped to decide how we, the people should live our lives that we are ourselves.
Bur Obama started a trend, we now have Emmanuel Macron in France and Stefan Lofven in Sweden following the same policy by trying to appease extremists of a completely alien culture by giving them everything they ask for, and then caving in again when the extremists increase their demands. And they accuse those who try to stand up to the violations of law and moral code or racism and xenophobia (see articles HERE and HERE on Muslim gangs systematic grooming and abuse of very young, usually vulnerable girls in Britain.)
Plainly as Obama processed towards the US Presidency in 2008 we were witnessing the rise of a wannabe Emperor. I was out on a limb then, being regularly accused of racism and attacked for being a right wing conservative and a young earth creationist for suggesting this was a virtue — signalling liberal only interested in representing the interests of certain minorities. My view was quickly proved correct however, when he forgot the campaign pledges to be the unifying leader, peacemaker and joybringer, instead on foreign policy at least, quickly becoming a warmongering neo-con puppet.
I never understood either of the criticisms levelled at me, never having been a conservative or considered myself a Christian and as for racism, my dislike and mistrust of Obama was nothing to do with his mixed race status or his skin colour. I dislike and mistrust all politicians, it is like a reflex with me and the instinct has never let me down.
Although Obama’s colour was used in efforts to suppress balanced debate of his policies and qualifications during the 2008 election campaign, throughout his two terms, and beyond the borders of the USA, efforts by governments, mainstream media and left wing activists to suppress the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to the official line on topics as diverse as mass migration, climate change, war in Syria, vaccines, genetic engineering and other controversial topics has intensified.
Now with Obama having served out his two terms and his successor two years into an even more controversial presidency, while liberals and socialists (and I suspect, a lot of people who just like drama and controversy,) rant and rage against the Trump presidency they reveal an apparent blindness to the assaults on democracy and free speech perpetrated by the Obama administration. Take a look back at this assault on freedom, not just the freedom of Americans but people everywhere, as The Prez Dude called for censorship of online content:
‘In another verbal assault on net neutrality, Obama is now warning that both
recent and future acts of terrorism stem from the accessibility of information on the internet.
In a speech yesterday, Obama said that information available online fuels
‘violent agendas’ through ‘hateful propaganda’ that drives terrorism. Warning that ‘internet materials’ are fueling domestic terror threats and actually causing people to go out and commit mass acts of terrorism, Obama is once again following in the footsteps of his fellow control freak associates in assaulting the openness of the internet that is now a hot spring for alternative news amid the frozen depths of the mainstream media.
In the speech, Obama said: “Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda and learn how to kill without leaving their home.”’
The original article is no longer available online, a report of the main points of Obama’s speech can be found HERE.
It was completely wrong of course, but then Washington (because presidents and prime ministers are just mouthpieces,) was not really talking about terrorism so much as trying to create a bogeyman to scare people into accepting government censorship of the web. What truly drives terrorism is the increasingly authoritarian attitude of incompetent politicians who are pushing for global government so they will be too far removed from the people to be held accountable for their incompetence and so will have power without responsibility.
It is not just Washington (under any of the recent administrations,) but also the European Union and other governments in developed nations that crave this level of control, over not just the content available through digital media, but also in print and on TV and radio. The internet poses a different set of problems than print and broadcast media corporations.
So long as politicians are more interested in meddling with the domestic arrangements of third world nations than curbing corporate power at home, more interested in abolishing free speech on the internet,in the
media and in the workplace, bar room and locker room than in breaking up emerging monopolies, in controlling information than tackling poverty and
unemployment, and more concerned with advancing their own interests than ruling in the interest of the people they are sworn to serve, no amount of controlling what is posted on the internet, published or broadcast in mainstream media or said in public spaces will stop the people rising up to defend their liberty.
No matter how hard or how often authority treads on the human face, a spark of independence and individuality always glows deep in the human psyche.
Another highly placed and often cited American legal scholar, Eric Posner is endorsing gutting the First Amendment in favour of anti-blasphemy, anti “hate speech”, anti — inequality laws and state sponsored censorship. It’s the most anti-Free Speech commentary I’ve seen since reading Karl Marx. And naturally it comes from someone who describes himself as a “progressive”.
Anti — blasphemy laws? WTF? In the liberal democracies of Europe and North America we stopped burning people at the stake for blasphemy centuries ago, and if it was still an offence punishable by imprisonment, probably around 80% of us would be in prison. Given Posner’s political affiliations and track record however, we can assume his definition of blasphemy is rather tunnel visioned, applying only to Islam, a religion which demands the death penalty even for people who make the mildest and most reasonable criticisms of the religion, its dogma and creed or its prophet. But the European Court Of Justice (ECJ — a wholly owned subsidiary of the Imperial European Union,) recently convicted a French woman for making reasonable criticisms of Islam. Ironically the judgement stating that her comments might offend Muslims was published on the day that Ireland became the last European nation to repeal it’s ancient blasphemy laws protecting Christianity. Also ironically, the ECJ, the British courts and courts in some US states do not have a problem with Muslim extremist preachers calling on their followers to slaughter all Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, secular humanists, pagans, shamanistic animists and people who just can’t be arsed with religion, because the existence of non Muslims is an insult to Allah.
The first amendment to the US Bill of Rights means little to we British, but our rights are enshrined in law too. The Magna Carta? you might well ask. No but closeish timewise; our common law rights are enshrined in a document signed into law before that even. King Alfred’s Liber Judicialis was written late in the ninth century. So why are we letting jumped up colonials and a bunch of closet Jew Roasters in Brussels dictate to us what we can and can’t say.
It turns out Prof. Posner is of the opinion that “we overvalue free
speech” (i.e. the ethics and values of goat molesters, vagina mutilators, head amputators and slave owners are the right ones and our Greco — Roman, Christian and Celtic — Gothic values are wrong. So we must abandon our moral code and adopt theirs or to put it another way, “often free speech
must yield to other values and the need for order.” Didn’t Hitler say something like that?
Chicago law professor Posner, who also argues “We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal; they emerged contingently from our own political history, a set of cobbled-together compromises among political andideological factions responding to localized events…”
Well yes, American rights such as Free Speech did emerge from American history and the shared Anglo Saxon values of the English speaking diaspora and the Germanic lands. Islamic values, of which Prof Posner seems so fond emerged out of Muslim history. Their values suit them, our values suit most of us with the exception of ego tripping elitist academics like Posner who have never done an honest days work in their lives but have progressed from being hooked on coke to being hooked on power.
If Posner was a tenth as intelligent as he thinks he is he might understand the case for free speech is a profoundly philosophical one, with a very long history (stretching back to Ancient Greece) and it is not only a Western idea, either. Posner is allegedly a highly educated legal scholar so we have grounds to suspect he knows this but finds it politically inconvenient to the goal of advancing a Cultural Marxist agenda and thus pretends it is not so (In Posner’s Brave New World can we expect it will be verboten to suggest that some public figure is — umm — being economical with the truth?)
The western culture hating Posner goes on to say “As often happens, what starts out as a grudging political settlement has become, when challenged from abroad, a dogmatic principle to be imposed universally. Suddenly, the disparagement of other people and their beliefs is not an unfortunate fact but a positive good. It contributes to the ‘marketplace of ideas…’”
Challenged from abroad? So this guy thinks that when a raving Muslim cleric
demands we declare free speech illegal and make insulting the Prophet a capital offence punishable by public stoning in the market place (according to Sharia Law,) we in Europe, the USA, Australia, Canada, Japan and
other outlying farmsteads of the civilised world should simply cave in to such extremist demands.
There is a lot wrong with the way free speech laws are interpreted these days but the freedom to examine and criticize people and beliefs is a positive good, how else will we ever be able to separate good ideas from bad ones? How else will we be able to determine that educating little girls is far more beneficial to society than mutilating their vaginas and using ancient, outmoded marriage traditions to enslave them (including the aforementioned stoning for disobedient wives — WARNING: link goes to photo of an actual stoning showing a blodied victim.) When sentenced to stoning the women are taken to the town square, buried up to the chest in sand, with hands bound so there is no way they can try to fend off the rocks which are about the size of cricket balls or baseballs as men of the town throw them for a period specified in the sentence.) Ironically many of the screeching feminists who supported #MeToo witch hunts are among the left wing activists who say we should welcome Islam and Sharia Law into our civilised societies.
There is no way other than freedom of discussion and a fully free news sector (including internet news sites,) to get the truth out to the greatest number of people. And government can’t specify in which ideas or criticisms are and aren’t permitted — that would assume we already knew and agreed on Truth.
Another irony in the behaviour of the hypocritical left is that the feminists who supported #MeToo and demanded men be found guilty and punished for sex crimes on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations made by women are in the main supportive of campaigns to excuse Muslims from legal responsibility for sex crimes against European women in European nations on the basis that “we must respect their culture.”
Do the intellectual idiots of the left seriously think it is reasonable to ask us to believe that if we are allowed the freedom to think for ourselves we might decide that Nazis or other right wing fanatics are right after all.” It is not right wing extremists who threaten our freedom but left wing extremists who yearn for authoritarian totalitarianism that we must fear. It is the left who not only want to tell us what we ca and cannot say in public, but what we can and cannot think in provate. We must never forget that Hitler’s political movement were the National Socialists and defend free sppech at all costs.
MORE ON FREE SPEECH:
Free Speech is under threat and journalism is dead
Speaking Tuth To Power (When power does not want to listen)
In almost every democratic nation our right of free speech is under attack. In Britain, Australia, Canada and all the main European Union member states we see harsh punishments imposed on those found guilty of ‘hate speech,’ laws, which protect certain minorities from any criticism, no matter how reasonable, made by people from the mainstream of society …