The more I think about it, the less enamoured I am of “free speech”, which it seems to me is yet another liberal chimera that ignores or smooths over the ontological nature of freedom.
“Free speech” in the practical sense is not offensive speech – which is pure free speech – but instead is defined in a more formal sense as wherever the line of acceptable speech can be drawn within a given culture. Multi-racialism and imposed diversity help us define the line of “free speech” in this multi-culture: it’s whatever does not offend, and the exact position of the ‘offence’ needle on the barometer of acceptability is never constant, always changing. That is, unless you are part of a protected group, in which case you can offend.
Anything that transgresses the threshold of acceptable speech is deemed illegal and potentially prosecutable, per “Count Dankula”.
Looking at the matter with detachment, none of this can be considered a surprise. It is difficult to imagine even a libertarian society that could tolerate liberal freedom of the chimerical sort. Can examples be brought forth? It seems to me that any society in which individuals aspire to be free must reckon with a paradox: intolerance of outsiders as a condition of internal tolerance.
The uncomfortable truth, then, is that unintellectual bigotry is a prerequisite of freedom. The working class blue collar racist, the roughneck who believes in Zionist conspiracy theories, the boorish lower middle-class businessman who wants to stop immigration and keep women in the home, the Tory Magistrate who wants to bring back the birch and close the borders, etc., are freedom’s cutting edge, not because – as the conservative might argue – the maintenance of freedom depends on the advancement and successful sustaining of a chimeric Liberal Order, but rather because the Order itself cannot exist without the people who maintain the relevant values that define it. We are freedom and freedom is us. Freedom means nothing unless we are able to survive and reproduce ourselves. If outsiders are tolerated and welcomed, freedom within that society will be gradually eroded.
That is why non-reactionary liberal societies collapse. They refuse to be bigoted and thereby sow the seeds of their decline and eventual destruction. It’s also why calling for “free speech” abstractly is completely futile. If you want “free speech” in anything other than the pretentious liberal chimeric sense, then the first steps are to close the borders, deport all non-Europeans and return society to communal principles.
Rights vs. Liberties
Strictly speaking, I am not in favour of ‘rights’. The word ‘right’ began as a synonym for ‘law’ and denoted what nascent states could or could not do to interfere in the liberties of their subjects. Only liberties exist in the natural sense and the only debate is the extent to which our liberties (to speak freely, to perambulate around, to own and use guns, or whatever) should be restricted by ‘rights’.
Thus rights and liberties are opposites. When you speak of ‘gun rights’ or the ‘right to bear arms’, what you should really be talking about is the abolition of the state’s right (or moral privilege) to interfere with a liberty that we have always had.
Bill Hicks on the power behind the throne…
The Third Rail
I created this site for my own purposes more than anything else. I write a lot, both fiction and non-fiction, and across a range of subjects. This is a space where I can set out my views and think through various issues, both things that are personal and things of wider relevancy. I don’t expect anyone else to read my thoughts or comments, but if anyone is reading this, then thanks for stopping by. I hope you find something here of interest.
You may wish to comment on my essays and other posts. That would be very much appreciated, especially if you have something to teach me, and I will endeavour to reply – but please remember that this is a site for independent thought. Thought-Police bores and PC drones are not wanted. If you fall into those categories but are willing to set out your thoughts and ideas calmly and coherently, then you’re as welcome here as anyone. Otherwise, take your manufactured outrage somewhere else.
I don’t mind contrary views, especially if they challenge some of my own prejudices and assumptions. Moral and intellectual growth involves an acceptance of criticism, but true debate involves not ‘winning’ or ‘losing’, but an exchange of ideas and a determination to reach an understanding.