I'll repeat my basic point that he seems to agree with whenever talking about anything else but suddenly changes his mind when talking about free speech -- people are too stupid and evil to be trusted to do the right thing. This is why they can't be trusted with the vote, they can't be trusted to enter and leave their own relationships freely, they can't be trusted to manage their own weight and health, and they can't be trusted to come to the right philosophical conclusions when presented with the facts of this world. Andrew Anglin agrees with me on the first three points but suddenly changes course and says people can be trusted to independently, like Socrates, discover all the wisdom of the world and serve nothing but the truth via free speech.
I've long since realized that most humans are like cattle and must be managed from birth to death if they are to have anything resembling a decent life. They will not discover it or succeed in it themselves. The natural course of a human life is a total wreck, a complete failure, a parasitic menace. All the statistics bear this out -- from marriage and divorce rates, adultery rates, obesity rates, drug use rates (legal and illegal), illegitimacy rates, employment in useful fields rates, who people vote for, mental illness rates, deviant sexuality rates, and crime rates.
Andrew Anglin agrees that people will largely make the wrong decision on every other important behavior in their life. He constantly lectures people on their diet and exercise choices, despises the LGBT agenda, abhors their voting decisions, declaims the breakdown of the family, etc., etc. So logically, it makes absolutely no sense for him to suddenly think people will always make the right decision when presented with a free and fair open debate. They made the wrong decision about everything else in their life that wasn't controlled, but when it comes to philosophizing suddenly everyone is a maestro.
"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."
Really? Literally no argument? And yet here I am giving one, so 'literally' cannot be accurate. The argument against free speech is that people, if allowed to choose between various lies and the truth, will largely choose one lie or another, especially since there are a million lies but only one truth, so just by chance odds are they'll choose a lie. Why will they choose a lie? Because they're stupid and evil. The same reason they'd choose to divorce, take drugs, vote Democrat, or get fat. Maybe the lie advantages them somehow, or makes them feel good about themselves, or is easier to understand than the truth. It hardly matters. The fact is we are looking at an entire world that believes in ridiculous lies from top to bottom -- that men can chop their dicks off and thus 'become' women. That all races are identical when every statistic ever gathered on them says not so. That Allah came down to Mohammed and had him recite God's word in such a manner that somehow only Mohammed ever came out better off while everyone else had to be raped, murdered and pillaged. That Jesus had to die on a cross so that God could forgive our sins, because clearly he couldn't do that without Jesus dying on a cross. (huh?)
There is proof positive, all around us, that free speech does not lead to good results. It leads to billions of deluded individuals believing the most ridiculous nonsense imaginable. Even dystopian novels can't come up with crap at this level of incredulity.
Yes I am afraid of what people are saying. This is because it has been proven that a lie, no matter how stupid or obviously false, has a high probability of deceiving billions of people. And when you allow unlimited liars to speak unlimited lies, by the laws of mathematical probability, inevitably a lie will catch fire and spread across your nation and boom, you've just lost your community and your future. I am afraid of a free-for-all world where anyone can get away with mouthing off about anything, and then suddenly communists take power in a coup and kill 100 million people, or Islam spreads from the Arabian peninsula and kills 300 million people, etc. If you had nipped these evil, lying ideologies in the bud then the destruction they wrought never would have occurred. And if you had nipped liberalism in the bud then the destruction of the west and the white race never would have occurred. Are those stakes high enough for you? Is that a good enough reason to fear free speech?
"Censored ideas become more appealing if they are censored"Bullshit. Atheism did not become more popular in the dark and middle ages, when it was punishable by death, than it is now, where there is no penalty. Apostasy in Islam was punishable by death, Islam in those periods was far more popular and atheism less believed than it is today in Islamic lands that no longer enforce the death penalty on apostasy. I can't think of a single example of a censored idea catching on, if the government was actually serious about enforcing its censorship.
Even the liberal, privatized censorship in America which has banished far-right speech to the outer darkness has succeeded brilliantly. Previously mainstream beliefs like gays were mentally ill sinners, or miscegenation was wrong, or the South's cause was valiant and just, or negroes were mentally unfit for self-rule, or women were the weaker sex best left in the home tending to children, via liberal censorship and banishing from all respectable institutions, have all been crushed underfoot and are now widely unpopular. If they had remained in the mouths of elected officials, Hollywood movies and television, university professors and popular literature, would these beliefs really have gone the way of the dinosaur? They prevailed for thousands of years until the censorship began, so how outrageous a claim is it to say that censorship makes a belief more popular, not less?
"People fundamentally understand that you do not need to lock people up for saying something which the state claims can be easily disproved."
Things can easily be disproven, but that does not mean they then go away. It is easy to disprove the idea that censorship always makes a belief more popular, I did it within seconds, but that doesn't mean Andrew Anglin will actually change his mind and recant that ridiculous position. In fact, no matter how proven a subject is, no one's mind is ever changed. Black IQ has tested at 85 for over 100 years, amidst an ever-changing environment all across the world. And yet still, despite clear proof that environment has little if any impact on black IQ, and that it therefore must be genetic, still not a single person's mind is changed and they still insist lower black IQ is due to environmental causes. 100 years of testing and twin studies proving IQ is heritable can easily prove that blacks are genetically stupider than whites, but free speech could not prevail or convince people that this was indeed the case. Instead the lie that the races were equal won out. So even when something is obvious, apparent, and indisputably proven by the facts, it is not easy to convince the populace that this is actually the case. In fact, you might say it's impossible to convince the populace, or even a single person, of anything, no matter how easily proven and factually indisputable your position. You can only bully and brainwash anyone into believing anything, every other method has already been attempted and has self-evidently failed by just looking out the window and seeing the society we live in today.
"I am afraid of no argument, because I am fully confident that I am right."
And where has that gotten you? Into a censored corner of the darkweb, while the country continues its leftward lurch towards oblivion. While the white race dies right before our eyes. Why don't you fear losing arguments? You've lost every single argument you've ever made. The powers that be won and you lost every--single--argument. On women. Blacks. Jews. Muslims. Gays. Diet. Exercise. Education. Employment. Anything you ever said on any issue, you lost. You lost the argument because more people believed the opposing side than you. It doesn't matter if, in your head, you feel vindicated in that you clearly made the more logical case. What matters is if society and the future are safe or if they are dying, because we're all on this ship together, and we cannot escape a society's wreckage nor can our children. Does it matter in the least if you feel like you won an argument in your own head if 99 out of 100 people flock to the other side and follow their advice instead of yours?
I fear losing arguments, because I fear for the fate of my country. I am directly affected by the death of the west, and I am spiritually brought low by it as well, because a major part of life's satisfaction is the belief that things will get better in the future and investments made today will pay off tomorrow. The divine chain of being, legacies being passed on from generation to generation, is pretty much the strongest motivation for people to get up in the morning and go to work. If we all knew the world was ending tomorrow and there was no future, 99% of human activity would stop. Well I already know the world is doomed, and this devastation lives inside me every day of my life, I'm living that thought experiment every single day because you lost the arguments you absolutely had to win to ensure society a decent future.
Wining and losing matters. This isn't some damn game. This isn't a college debate tournament where you argue with each other for the rhetorical kicks and to feel good about how clever you are then go home with no consequences as to who wins or loses. This is the fate of the world at stake, and when you lose the debate, by the only measure that matters -- whether society changes in your direction or against you -- the consequences are dire beyond imagination. We have only seen the beginning of the awful consequences of losing the debate to liberalism. It all ends in a place worse than anything else in human history -- worse than the Tsar's loss to Lenin, worse than Chiang Kai-Shek's loss to Mao, worse than anything that has ever come before. Because this time the lies are more egregious than ever before, like, men and women don't exist, whites don't exist, gay marriage is equal to marriage that actually reproduces and gives humanity a future, math is racist, logic is a facet of the toxic patriarchy, etc., etc. They are going to tear down everything that makes life possible. Every single thing. Cambodia only killed 1/3 of its people. Liberalism is deadset on killing 100%. The next generation won't even be born under their design.
"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."
No, that's the fundamental idea of the Enlightenment. Perhaps the fundamental idea of the Constitution. But it is not the fundamental idea of Western Civilization. The fundamental ideas of Western Civilization are Plato and Aristotle, i.e., logic and science. We were the first to grasp how to come to the truth in an unfailing and provable by results manner. This allowed Greek science and philosophy, Roman law and engineering, and eventually the scientific method and the industrial revolution. The logicians who inherited Aristotle's framework went on to build computers and A.I., which is the next step of western civilization's true legacy.
Greeks and Romans had no compunction in restricting people's freedom, Plato did not believe in democracy but rule by the wise, he had no illusions about how great people would be if left to their own devices.
Likewise, Christianity had no compunction about restricting freedom. It banned heresy on penalty of death, limited women's rights so that they'd stick to virtuous activities, and provided a very structured and un-fun environment for men. Violence, sex, anything men liked to do, Christianity cracked down on it hard. I don't consider Christianity fundamental to Western Civilization, more like a plague that infected and brought its Greco-Roman golden age down, but historically speaking, at no point until the Enlightenment was anyone in the West operating under the theory that the state exists to protect people's freedoms. For Christ's sake, most people were serfs and peasants with no legal rights at all.
The Enlightenment was an even dumber idea than Christianity. Freedom isn't paramount, a well-lived life is paramount, and insofar as being free means being able to not live a well-lived life, or destroy other people's capacities for a well-lived life, it is a negative utility, not a positive one. Governments were not instituted to protect people's freedoms, they were instituted to guide people down the right path as discerned by the wisest and best among us. As evidence for this, no one says 'in heaven I will be free.' God is the absolute dictator of heaven and the souls that reach his abode do nothing but worship him. Everyone understands that the perfect government is one where the perfect governor is absolutely obeyed.
The Enlightenment was on a sort of high of human optimism. Coming off from the spread of literacy, the fall of Christian mysticism, and the industrial revolution, it felt like anything was possible. That the human mind had infinite potential and was at last capable of being and thinking and doing all things to perfection. I do not begrudge the thinkers of this period, living in a period of unbelievable progress on all fronts, having a healthy belief in man's potential. But they were wrong. Subsequent centuries have proven that literacy only helps a few people smart enough to actually read and understand arguments. That even with Christianity's retreat, belief in unreal nonsense like the equality of the races perseveres, and that the machine-like precision of A.I. cannot be imported into the human head. Freedom seemed like a good idea at the time, because progressive thought was leading to unbelievable material and spiritual progress all around them. But that was a mere coincidence. Usually disturbing cultural norms doesn't lead to progress, it leads to ruin. And now we see just how much can be ruined by challenging ideas like marriage, race, sex, etc. In the end you can ruin everything. Life itself is blotted out. (If you don't believe me, just look at the number of children born in China -- lower than in the 1700's.)
Anyone who still today believes in the Enlightenment is a complete moron. If you can stare at drag queen story hour and still celebrate freedom then you're either a Satanist or a nihilist. If you can stare at all those ditzy German girls holding up 'refugees welcome' signs to the Muslims who days from now will be raping them (with hundreds of thousands already raped this is now proven beyond debate) and still believe in freedom then you are beyond redemption.
"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."
Bullshit. People were creative and productive in the Greco-Roman era where freedom was rare and slavery was common. The Nazis had unprecedented scientific progress, inventing the jet engine and spaceflight in a totalitarian system that criminalized communists, banned Jewish newspapers, rounded up gays and put them in concentration camps, etc. In fact the biggest determinant of creativity and productivity is discipline vs. decadence. If people are disciplined they become accomplished, if they are decadent they don't. The Roman empire conquered the world via the discipline of its soldiers, not with the 'power of freedom.' The British Empire conquered the world with the discipline of its sailors, not with the 'power of freedom.' It was legendary how strict captains were with their crew and the awful punishments used against any breach in discipline.
Tyranny is extremely conducive to creativity, because it channels the mind down productive paths. In fact, our entire education system is built around the idea that tyranny is necessary for productivity. We control what children do and think all day so that they'll be more productive tomorrow. If instead we felt freedom was what led to production, why not just let them play outside all day, take drugs, or whatever?
Why do we have a managerial class in business? Their tyranny is what increases workplace efficiency. If it didn't work, they wouldn't exist. Companies without management, who told their workers to just 'do whatever, we don't care,' would make all the inventions and all the profits. Why hasn't that happened? Shouldn't said workers be the most creative?
Of course the people in power are held accountable by the masses, but not directly, via elections. They're held accountable by how well off the masses become. If their rule is bad, their nation shrivels and dies. The masses directly hold them to account by their own success or failure in life. If their rule is good, then the country and the people thrive, become more prosperous, more numerous, and expand across the globe and ultimately the stars. This is how every dictator has been held to account by history, by whether their people waxed or waned under their rule. The Tsars, the British and French monarchs, the Roman Emperors and the Chinese Emperors, no matter how tyrannical they were, the people still had the ultimate say because they either became worse off or better off. Sima Yan ruled China with an iron fist but, due to his misrule, within just one generation after his death China had ceased to be and was replaced by 16 warring barbarian hellholes.
This evolutionary course to nations is healthier than rulers 'debating' their subjects, which allows for the spread of pernicious ideas which otherwise never would have come to the attention of the masses. You could say the Bolshevik Revolution was entirely due to the Tsar's relinquishing control of the newspapers. We are still paying for that mistake today.
It is also much healthier than allowing elections to decide our rulers, because the next question is 'who is best at influencing the electorate?' The answer invariably is Jewish newspaper editorialists who set the tone for the entire nation and decide what is right and wrong for everybody. This was true during the Russian Revolution and it's true today during the George Floyd protests. If the New York Times had never reported on his death, or reported it as a freak, atypical occurrence in a normally benevolent and just America, none of this would be happening. Instead they lied and said this is a common event and proof of institutional, systemic genocide of black Americans and here we are today.
If Covid-19 had been reported -- accurately -- by the newspapers as being another strain of the flu that strikes the exact same people as the flu -- old people in nursing homes, then life would have gone as normal in America and the world. Instead they hyped it as a mega-plague set to kill us all and boom, the whole world shut down. For the first time in history we lost March Madness, and for the first time ever in peacetime we lost the Olympics. This is just indicative of the massive wholesale devastation wrought on everyone's lives.
The newspapers are the ultimate power in a world decided by elections -- not the electorate. The people are completely helpless and just believe whatever they're told. This has been proven over and over and over again, by their willingness to believe any lie reported by the news no matter how absurd -- that Trump was Putin's KGB agent -- that Saddam Hussein did 9/11 -- that Brett Kavanaugh in his college years attended mass rape parties every weekend -- anything you can think of, the newspapers have managed. It's almost like a game to them what they can make people believe next, there's no hurdle too high.
"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."
What a hypocrite. He who would ban anime says his freedoms should be sacrosanct. His entire agenda is to ban all sorts of freedoms liberalism has allowed -- abortion, miscegenation, divorce, single parenthood, women in the workforce, drug use, obesity, etc., etc. Name any freedom and he's pretty much against it. But on this one single subject, freedom of speech, suddenly he's a libertarian and freedom is again paramount, for this one exceptional moment, before he goes on to argue against banning some other freedom which he thinks is perfectly fine to ban.
He argues daily that women should be put in cages and have all their freedoms stripped from them, but don't you dare come for his freedoms.
No, it doesn't work that way. The moral argument for restricting people's freedoms is that ultimately they're better off because of it. This includes everyone. Everyone must live a disciplined, controlled life via benevolent, wise strictures and commands from on high, or no one must. If there's an exception for your freedoms, then there is no principled, moral, way to enforce restrictions on anyone else's freedoms. It's all or nothing, there is no inbetween. You cannot be a hypocrite when it comes to freedom or any other subject and still be taken seriously. I'm happy to be the enemy of hypocrites, the worst sin possible. They disgust me more than anyone else, because they know full well what is right but choose their own advantage instead in a willing denial of the Good.
I want a country where you're perfectly free to tell the truth, but liars trying to subvert society with dangerous and destructive ideas are shut down immediately -- before the cancer spreads. This is the only way to preserve your country, as has been demonstrated by reality today. In the current world horrible ideas were allowed to take root and fester, and now we're looking at cataclysmic birth rates, divorce rates, obesity rates, drug overdoses, you name it. Everything is horrible and getting worse every day. If we had stuck to the old rules and not allowed anyone to question them, we'd still be living the idyllic lives of the 1950's or the 1850's, except with incredibly more comfortable technology. It would be paradise on Earth for all. Instead we have the highest depression and mental illness rates ever recorded. Even modernity is heaven compared to what happens when the blacks and Muslims take over 50 years from now, due to the open borders talk we allowed to fester and grow. We'll be lucky if life is as good as Zimbabwe. These are own goals. We didn't have to let people be propagandized by evil newspapers into believing in open borders. This is not a natural belief people would ordinarily come to. It is unprecedented in all of human history. With censorship this could have been averted, but now we're looking at the literal end of the world. Billions of blacks and muslims seizing power via electoral majorities and from there all our property, and basically cannibalizing all human progress back to the stone age.
This is freedom of speech. I am the enemy of freedom of speech, which delivered us this cataclysmic and completely avoidable future, and I am against Andrew Anglin who insists on keeping it despite the cataclysmic damage he admits it has wrought. He's even worse than the liberals, who genuinely believe they're ushering in paradise. He knows what freedom of speech has done and endorses it anyway. What kind of abyssal heart can do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment