Category: censorship

Twitter and Free Speech

Hypocrisy of democracy.

The crazed leftist view on free speech issues is here:

Twitter has discovered what many proponents of democratic society already knew: censorship is not the opposite of free speech. In fact, so-called free speech can actually be used as a weapon to silence the vulnerable and dispossessed. Ironically, to maintain its position as a platform for free discourse, Twitter must censor its users. 

My first riposte to that stupidity is to state that the “vulnerable and dispossessed” are precisely those people who are having their speech silenced through Twitter censorship. 
And that’s not just an abstract and logical objection, and it is not merely specific to the Twitter case. In the “West” those groups alleged to be “vulnerable and disposed” – minorities of various kinds for example – are allowed to say and do whatever they please, they are allowed to organize in an identitarian fashion to pursue group interests, and their relative proportion of the population is increasing. Those groups – the majority for example, particularly heterosexual men – who are considered “privileged” and “powerful” are those whose speech is censored and in some cases criminalized, who are not allowed to organize on a group basis, and whose proportion of the population is, not surprisingly, declining.  Indeed, for the latter group, complaints about these issues are themselves censored, leading to a negative spiral of disempowerment.
That sort of puts into perspective “vulnerable and dispossessed” doesn’t it?
A commentator at that article expresses the following view (spelling corrected):

I am sorry, but that’s one of the most idiotic claims ever made in ars Technica. 

By definition, censorship is the suppression of speech, which makes speech less free.  

The so-called “hate speech” criteria are one of the reasons why the German and international media engaged in self-censorship about the Cologne sexual attacks resulting in unwillingness to properly report the events. 

In reality, the world isn’t one big liberal-arts college campus, you know?

And my own “free speech primer” is here.
Question: Should a White ethnostate allow free speech to its ideological opponents?  The answer is: no.  Yes, as I outline above, free speech is extremely important. But:

1. Those who deny free speech to others to facilitate the genocide of those others cannot expect the courtesy of free speech extended to them.  Their ACTIONS – not speech – have criminalized them. 
2. In a White ethnostate, any such people would either be no longer under the jurisdiction of the state or they would be put on trial and the slowly tortured to death as punishment for the crimes committed under the present regime. So, the entire question is irrelevant.
3. The sort of White ethnostate I envision and promote would not be a democracy and would not make a pretense of being one, or of hypocritically speaking of “freedom” while denying such freedom to its majority citizens.  It is the current regime – that bases its legitimacy on “freedom” – that has the obligation to free speech.  An openly national socialist regime has no obligation.

4. The only thing that trumps free speech is freedom of association, championed by a White ethnostate.  The current System denies its majority freedom of association, and uses censorship of speech as a weapon to silence opposition to that policy.

Moderating Comments

I prefer no comments at all.
Well, moderating is better than the “free for all zoo” that occurs with lack of moderation.  And, I believe KMacD when he says that he does not “censor” comments at his site merely because he disagrees with them.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about other sites.  Herein lies the problem with blog comments.  Comments with no moderation will destroy a blog and drag it into a sewer, and also leave it open to Sunsteinite manipulation (which also occurs on poorly moderated blogs as well). However, moderation leave you open to accusations of deleting comments that effectively refute your position, thus yourself manipulating debate by eliminating certain points of view.
In contrast, I pick the simplest option: no commenting.  Certainly, that incurs costs as well, but it is the most time efficient.
Of course, in the end, moderating and no comments are not “censorship.”  One is free to set up one’s own blog to assert one’s own opinions. A commitment to free speech does not carry with it the obligation to host all types of speech at one’s own site. A commitment to free speech, for example, does not obligate a Negro to have a Stormfronter come to the Negro’s home and spout anti-Negro remarks.  On the other hand, the Stormfronter should have the right to say whatever he wants in public, and on his own property, including on Internet sites.

Well, Well, Well: Mainstreaming Chickens Come Home to Roost

Mainstreamers are stupid and need to be ignored.
Other reports indicate that was on Viktor Orbans’s orders.  But, but, but…I thought Viktor Orban was an ethnonationalist superhero, bravely standing up to the anti-White EU elites on subjects important to European preservationism.  Could it be…that the “conservative” “nationalist” “mainstream” merely exploit nationalist sentiment for electoral purposes, to keep their “red meat” supporters happy and satisfied, while in reality kowtowing to the globalist elites, the EU, and the Jews?
No worries!  Why, I’m sure the mainstreamers believe that Marine Le Pen will offer to host the conference and give it her seal of approval.  Yes?  No?
Another indication that the Old Movement is full of morons and imbeciles, self-important folks whose time has passed.  If you keep on trying the same failed methods over and over again – choosing between conservative mainstreaming or neo-Nutzi Hitlerism, and keep on failing – you’d think that, eventually, one would wake up and decide a fresh start was needed.  But, no.  Don’t worry though. Just open up your volume of March of the Titans, Who We Are, or Raciology, dream about the glory days of “Nordic Hindus,” and all will be well.