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.