The Issue of Free Speech

Free speech is probably the most valuable weapon any would-be rebellious movement has in the modern world as it now is. The issue is that it will not last.

The alternative Right and all its various manifestations and branches has only been able to survive the past decade or so due to the still relatively high level of freedom of speech, expression and association within our respective Western societies. That outright exclamations of hatred and violence are, by some, considered to be within the remit of “free speech” and that the outlaw of such things is a violation of such is largely unimportant. That political correctness exists to limit free speech in the more formal areas of modern life is unfortunate, it is not the end of the line yet. Things could still become much worse.

We still have the internet and various alternatives to Microsoft and Apple in regards to operating systems; remaining “hidden” to a degree is still possible using certain internet browsers or other software. It’s no wonder our liberal governments want to control and regulate the internet. It has nothing to do with “terrorism,” it has everything to do with political dissension and the enforcement of ideological totalitarianism. The fact, however, is, that we aren’t there just yet. I will not be put into jail or executed for typing and publishing these words (I hope).

We still have our privacy to a degree in our homes in private conversations. “Right-wing” newspapers, journals and other publications are still existent. They might not all be within the remit of the extremities of the alternative Right, but the populism of UKIP in the UK or the rhetoric of Donald Trump in the US is still allowed.

The matter of freedom of speech is something which transcends politics, essentially. One can be either on the Left or Right and support it. What it comes down to, and the infringement of it, is totalitarianism. Not authoritarianism; but total domination of culture and society with an explicit agenda. In Western countries, there are no proper secret services along the lines of the early KGB, the Khmer Rouge or even the Gestapo as of yet. That isn’t to say these things couldn’t develop – and, going by present trends, they will – but they haven’t developed as of this moment. Thus, this moment, and every moment like it, is valuable.

By limiting the scope of conversation and communication, it becomes easier for any regime to assert itself ever more boldly with less and less actual resistance. By suppressing some things, others are normalised and encouraged when they previously were only prominent in the fringes of the society. The terror directed by Pol Pot in Indochina intended to we-wire human nature via brutal suppression and social engineering. The hard edge of the old Left, as pointed out by the late Jonathan Bowden, has been rejected in favour of a softer, more subversive edge by the new Left. This softer edge is actually more powerful than the hard edge as it warps and mutates the culture and society very thoroughly and subtly over an extended period. We are no longer faced with scenes of children ripped from their mother’s arms and men shot for crimes against the international proletariat, and the Left has benefited immensely from the avoidance of such obviously monstrous behaviour.

The various forms of soft Left subversion and totalitarianism take the form of political correctness, the normalization of certain previously fringe-elements of the society, playing with etymology and the meaning of words and the meaning of meaning, playing upon and exploiting the human instinct of associating one thing with another in various ways, and so on. The trouble the Left has though, is that these forms of social manipulation and control take a rather long time to fully manifest. Pol Pot’s communes were quick, brutal and direct, where the subtleties of a van Rompuy or an Obama take years if not decades (if one considers many events were set in motion in the fifties and sixties) to actually materialize and take enough hold on the culture and society where one can then push things in certain directions.

What I’m essentially saying is that there is still a deal of breathing room in the present civilization(s) for us, the alternative Right, and our different externalizations. This will not last, but we must make as much use of it as we can in the time that we have.

Keep in mind that the various laws and ways of thinking which limit free speech are there to imprison the masses, not the intelligentsia. If one speaks or writes or types about things in a certain way; in a certain abstract or hypothetical way; one can avoid “detection.” Liberals and the Left generally can and will see these things – there might even be one of you reading this – but one can actually have discussions on race, history, the Jews, et cetera in these channels if it is done in a certain way.

That is not to say I advocate we organize lynch mobs and hit-squads via hidden sentences wthin philosophical meandering and postulation. If one is able to think and explain things in a certain in-depth, abstract way, then I’d imagine one doesn’t actually agree with those things per se anyways. The alternative Right ought not hide or lie or be dishonest – in fact I think those things are utterly indefensible in almost any circumstance – but it ought to utilize the space and world it’s been lucky enough to be born into.

Free speech as we know it is relatively modern, and is almost exclusively West European via the rich intellectual and academic traditions this part of the world entertains. In Traditional societies, there wasn’t free speech as such. There were right things to say which were allowed, and wrong things to say which were punished. The latter were essentially the breaking of religious codes, and by extension (as religious and state authority were linked) the laws passed by government. Saying the wrong thing regarding religion wasn’t a crime because you were disturbing the peace and were politically dissenting, it was a crime because you could be defiling a place of God (or gods) and your actions would have metaphysical consequences beyond the temporal moment. Keep in mind that the ancients had a different experience of time than we do; it was non-linear to a degree – static – (hence Julius Evola called them “Civilizations of Space”) so spiritual implications, suggestions, and so on, all held a very immediate, “real” seriousness.

The same thing is obviously not the case for progressive universities or liberal governments who wish to see themselves indefinitely in power, even when their actions are hugely detrimental to the people they are supposed to represent and who’s lives they claim to care for (or even, rather honestly, do not).

Make no mistake, the establishment wants total control; total domination; total strangulation; and it will achieve it even more so before the times change.  Things will get worse before they get better, and as I’ve said, our remaining freedom is likely to be restricted as time goes on.

We must utilize the time we have whilst we are able to so openly. The internet in its current form – as a largely free, open network – is unique in all of human history and communications. It is already changing.

Prepare for the worst, friends; but stay vigilant.


4 thoughts on “The Issue of Free Speech

  1. Dissemination of written material in the form of books, books that capture the insights of the alt-right and NRx in lucid and succinct manner, would advance the dissident right’s cause in the face of the advent of speech restriction.

    As you note, there are two Overton windows – the narrow window of the general public, and the much wider window of the intellectuals. This is counter-intuitive based on the liberal domination of academia and media, but if your thoughtcrimes are expounded upon intelligently enough, evidently they are allowed to persist; the Inner Party is not made of geniuses. Fact is, Nick Land hasn’t been shunned yet by the Cathedral, and the backlash against Moldbug wasn’t as severe as one could expect. Wade’s Troublesome Inheritance wasn’t censured, was it?

    So: reactionary books could sway some dissident intellectuals, and once their Overton window shifts to the right, the Cathedral would start disintegrating. Proper marketing would stress the elitist, non-populist appeal of the material. Liberalism is ultimately unsustainable and the dissident right needs a critical mass of supporters among the Brahmins to become worthy of power once the collapse ushers.

    On a final note, I’d argue that while swaying dissident elites to the right is an important aspect of the program, moving the people’s Overton window to the Left would as well indicate to those who can see how susceptible democracy is to mass delusion, how flawed demotism is. Accelerate Tumblr, in other words.

  2. “Saying the wrong thing regarding religion wasn’t a crime because you were disturbing the peace and were politically dissenting, it was a crime because you could be defiling a place of God (or gods) and your actions would have metaphysical consequences beyond the temporal moment. Keep in mind that the ancients had a different experience of time than we do; it was non-linear to a degree – static – (hence Julius Evola called them “Civilizations of Space”) so spiritual implications, suggestions, and so on, all held a very immediate, “real” seriousness.”

    Yes, yes, yes, and even more yes. This is an easily overlooked distinction between attacking free speech from a Traditional Authoritarian standpoint, as opposed to the Modern Totalitarian standpoint. It should be noted, people in Traditional societies really didn’t have political ideas. The monarchy, aristocracy, and the Church did, but not the people. Everyone had only one political viewpoint and that was a loyalty to their sovereign and God’s priestly representatives, provided both upheld their duties. All particulars were for those authorities to work out.

    This is a really important post, I will have to link to it in my upcoming article on both the issue of populism and of how the radical right actually may come to look, on the ground, in the coming years. We already see in the UK, new laws which actually ban outright ANY ‘anti-democratic’ views being publicly expressed. The online aspect is murkier, but apparently police have the authority to close down blogs at their discretion. This will come the United States eventually, sooner than anyone realizes. The internet may remain open to right wing spread further east in Europe, but this is a harder medium to access and influence. How long do we have? I’ll be generous and say 6-10 years before it really becomes visible that they are getting rid of dissent in the realm of open and free expression against Modernism. This will coincide with a general weakening of power they will suffer as their institutions teeter (particularly economic and foreign national security).

    By the time that comes around, I think the aim is to have a subculture built and ready to take over the reins from what will then be a strangled internet environment. Everything will go totally darknet, underground, secret rendezvous, etc.

    1. This may be LARPing, but it might be worth having some back up plans ready for some of our blogs, like samizdat (self publishing) and drop off points. I doubt America will deal with a literal KGB or anything, but even basic censorship could severely damage our networks if we aren’t ready.

  3. Alexis de Toqueville, travelling through the US in the 1820s observed that true nature of liberal totalitarianism:

    I do not know a country where there is in general less intellectual independence and less freedom of discussion than in America… In America the majority builds an impregnable wall around the process of thinking.

    The Inquisition was never able to prevent the circulation in Spain of books opposed to the religion of the majority. The majestic rule of the majority does better in the United States; it has removed even the thought of publishing them.

    -De Toqueville, Democracy in America (1835)

    I feature these words on the sidebar of my blog. There won’t (I think) be gulags. Anglo-totalitarianism is a different animal from Eurasian varieties. It is at once weaker, in absolute intensity, but more pervasive in absolute extent.

    The fight, such as it is, remains in the very informal “branches” of our system. In the corporations, in private conversations, in social media, the front-lines of the culture war have been staffed on the left by ordinary, mostly volunteer, mostly quite mild Sunday School Teacher Types.

    And it has worked (even as de Toqueville noticed) quite well for them. As a consequence, our government really has little competence in fighting internal ideological enemies. At least those who are smart enough to keep their heads down, speak in code, and remain anonymous. Yes it is true, if the NSA wants me, they have all ready found me. (Hi NSA!) But that seems improbably. USG hasn’t aggrandized its power by making many martyrs. The real fear is from informal enemies, the press, corporations, witch-hunting SJWs, etc. And against them, ordinary means of anonymizing should typically be sufficient.

    At least for the foreseeable future. By the time, things get truly hairy for USG and it’s internal spy agencies, they’ll likely have far bigger problems to worry about pseudononymous persons pontificating on the internet about Holding Onto the Best of Western Civilization.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s