Free Speech Versus the Committee of Public Safety

American “philosopher” hates Trump, wants redistribution of wealth:

“Australian philosopher”, hates white Aussies, wants redistribution of wealth.

Soupie fills his pockets with our wealth and dumps on us at every opportunity.

Dipsticks like this get airtime on “our” ABC.

Ray Green

The mainstream left now openly rejects freedom of speech, and wants to banish the concept from our public discourse. They have moved on from merely denigrating it as unimportant, something trivial to be disregarded as soon as it encroaches on big, important rights like the right of all non-whites to never ever be maligned by an accurate statement of facts. Increasingly, free speech is seen as a code-word for racism, which is of course the very definition of evil.

I mean, why would you need freedom of speech unless you’re intent on hurting someone’s feelings? (For that matter, why would you need privacy unless you’re doing something wrong…?)

On Q&A last night, a circus involving pseudo-philosopher Cornell West and a bunch of other ranting nincompoops unfolded, with Senator Eric Abetz trying his cuckservative best to play the Sensible Centrist ™.

Here’s how it went down:

“Christian philosopher Cornel West has hit out at Donald Trump in a Q&A panel that focused on freedom of speech and the “right to offend”, labelling the US President a “gangster”.

“Dr West said America was experiencing a decline and that wealth inequality was increasing, and warned the US President was a “gangster” who came out of a rich but negative tradition of using his insecurity to put others down.”

So that would be a rich but negative tradition of insecure put-down gangsters. Hmm. Thought-provoking stuff from this “Christian philosopher” and “public intellectual.” (I had to look that up, because I vaguely thought he was a rapper.)

“When he grabs a woman’s private parts or makes jokes about it, [or] he’s going to get oil in another country, that’s gangster. Calling Mexicans rapists. Dishonouring and demonising precious Muslims. That’s gangster,” Dr West said.”

Ok, so from the dictionary according to this guy:

Gangster (adj.): The quality of making dirty jokes, getting oil in another country, calling Mexicans rapists, and being mean to precious Muslims.
Christian (noun): One who honours and sanctifies Muslims.
Philosopher (noun): One who attributes novel meanings to common words while incoherently attacking ideological foes.

And they said Dr Samuel Johnson’s English Dictionary was idiosyncratic.

Think about it. Here you have an incoherent, decidedly, ahem, low-IQ individual holding forth about politics and morality to an audience of millions, and making the case (as best he is able) that anyone who disagrees with his nonsense should lose their right to speak in public.

In short, he is the living embodiment of our absolute need to defend freedom of speech.

Backing up Dr West in his verbally inefficient struggle against the flaccid counterarguments of Eric Abetz was Labor MP Anne Aly:

The other half of the clown show.

Responding to the Senator’s enthusiastic concession that, indeed, racial discrimination is a Very Bad Thing, she proffered this rebuttal to his muted plea for free speech:

“You are denying the experiences of racism of thousands, hundreds of thousands of Australians. You are denying them their right to live peacefully, to live with respect, every time you bring up that free speech argument.”
“I think we need to be talking about the nature of debate in Australia and how we move forward with that,” she said.

So there you have it. Every time we appeal to free speech as a value in our society, we are committing a violent act of racism. By simply advocating one of the defining values of Western civilisation, we are declaring ourselves enemies of the state, of progress and of humanity. This according to a representative of the party that is tipped to win the next Federal Election.

So if you care about free speech, remember to get out and vote Liberal! (LOL, JK.)

5 thoughts on “Free Speech Versus the Committee of Public Safety”

  1. Our most basic human right is to SELF-defense, and that obviously includes the right to complain about extortion to rally others to help us defend our selves.

    That’s called Free Speech, and it’s only limited to not knowingly spreading lies (aka the crimes of fraud and slander).

    Criminals have declared war, in advance, on all their enemies, and so attack first by slander, by accusing their victims of causing their crimes, pretending to only be attacking in self-defense.

    “Liberals” (criminal gangsters) of course pretend to think you have no right to self-defense, which also means to them that you have no right to use free speech to accuse criminals (islam/muslims) in order to call for others to help you defend your self either.

    So, to them, (being criminal gangsters / liberals / muslims) anyone else simply reading the Qur’an and accusing islam and muslims of their crimes, is classified as: “ugly hate email harrassment” etc.

    Sane people call it “truthful warnings about criminals.”

    Treasonous “liberal” (criminal gangster) judges probably WOULD grant her a restraining order, in order to shut up whistleblowers, because they are owned by oil-banksters and personally fear islam and muslims, too.

    The ONLY limit to Free Speech, should be the Truth!

    There is no false “right” to not be offended by the often-painful truth!

    That only pretends valid objective educational warnings are subjective threats! It pretends all objective facts are really only subjective opinions, and that people are such fallible victims that they can never really tell the difference between them!

    It pretends people have the false right to remain irresponsibly wrong! That there’s no wrong answers! It deprives people of their real right to learn from their mistakes, and to become right by learning to solve problems!

    As even Aristotle noted long ago, slander is only pre-judice, and vice-versa; presenting accusatory opinions as if they were facts (making accusations against someone else, BEFORE having the facts straight)! And that breaks the Golden Rule of Law (to not attack first)!

    Of course, aggressively chanting or yelling a truth at someone in a threatening manner ALSO breaks the Golden Rule, because all threats are psychological attacks (aka: bullying, intimidation, coercion, duress, extortion, “terrorism”) and all non-defensive attacks are crimes.

    But ‘threatening’ a criminal with his just punishments, after he’s already committed his crimes, isn’t a theat so much as a promise!

    The only other way speech should be limited, is if it incites un-just violence against innocent others (as opposed to legislators and police chiefs calling for violence against those who have already attacked innocent others, as in: if they call for the death-penalty, for instance).

    The Defense of Truth should always apply.

    Censorship is tyranny. Popular speech needs no protection.

    “When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives.”
    — Robert A. Heinlein

    “The function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it invites a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it passes for acceptance of an idea.”
    — Justice William O. Douglas
    (1898-1980), U. S. Supreme Court Justice
    Source: Terminello v. Chicago, 1949

    “A free man must not be told how to think, either by the government or by social activists. He may certainly be shown the right way, but he must not accept being forced into it.”
    Col. Jeff Cooper

    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of government. But then I repeat myself.
    ~Mark Twain

  2. Despite Anne Aly’s change of hair colour to a lighter tone – a form of camouflage – in an effort to make herself appear more palatable to viewers – she’s still a snake in long grass. Abetz correctly pointed out that people who are offended by other’s free speech can choose not to be offended.

    Aly refuses to see and never acknowledges that simple fact. Because it would mean that muslims (and others) would have to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

    1. Yes first say, I agree it means that Muslims (and others) would have to take responsibility for their own thoughts and actions.

      then say Aly gator tears.

      The Australian Parliament is not a place for hugging and crying. It should not be encouraged. It is a place of business. At the moment the politicians are not doing a good job.

      some of the Aly gator tears are in here.

      sob sob “I got hate mail”

      “It is upsetting and, yeah..”

      1. The Australian Parliament is not a place for hugging and crying. It should not be encouraged.

        Indeed. It is also no place for suckling babies by unstable females who disrupt gov’t business by annoying everyone.

        Order in the house must be restored!

Comments are closed.