Skip to content

Category: Freedom of Speech

Freedom Is Assaulted from the Left, from Nationalists, Ignoramuses, Morons

So here is another rather disorganized post (maybe another “rant”?) expressing some of the thoughts I have been having, regarding the lovers of the police state on both left and “right” (who are often “wrong” so put it in quotes), those opponents of freedom.

We have an immigration battle between the Trump nationalists who want a damn un-American Wall, and the Democrats and socialists. And Democrats announcing a run for President who have no chance of winning. They aren’t Democrats but far-left ideologues who really want a Soviet Union 2.0. (However, Donald Trump with his love for government central planning! I think he would LOVE a U.S. Soviet Union!)

And we have a continuation of a kangaroo Mueller “investigation” that should embarrass any honest people anywhere in the legal or law enforcement communities. How disgusting, all of this.

I just wanted to get this in here. Glenn Greenwald writes about NBC news with a sham report on Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard being supported by the Russian regime and Putin, based on info from a firm the New York Times recently caught fabricating Russian data for the Democrat party. I never thought I would see the day when Glenn Greenwald would write about the “playbook used by the axis of the Democratic Party, NBC/MSNBC, neocons and the intelligence community” that would be “to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin.”

Now, I am not a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, regardless of her non-interventionist views in foreign policy, because of her way-out leftist views on everything else.

And speaking of way-out leftists, I heard someone on one of those Sunday news shows, maybe ABC This Week, not sure, on Bloomberg Radio, with a very distorted view of freedom. (Bloomberg Radio airs This Week, Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday and Fake the Nation on Sundays.) I think the guy I heard being interviewed was Sen. Cory Shnooker, who has announced a run for President in 2020, nearly two years before the actual election, just like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Three ignorant and dangerous shnooks (like Trump).

Anyway, the guy was saying that people talk about “freedom” like “freedom from government regulation” and so on. And he wanted to clarify that freedom is really (and I’ll paraphrase because I’m not sure who said it, probably Cory Shnooker, or which show it was on, and can’t find a video or transcript of this), that freedom is really “freedom to not have to worry about being able to pay the bills, freedom to not worry about losing your health care,” and so on, you know, an irrational and incorrect meaning of “freedom.” (And if I’m wrong and it wasn’t Cory Shnooker I heard saying these things, then sorry about that. But I’m pretty sure of it.)

Many people on the Left believe that freedom means the freedom from contractual obligations or the freedom from risk with one’s financial decisions. They want the nanny government to take care of them so that everything is taken care of, health care, and so on. Freedom from responsibility.

And many of them believe that freedom includes the freedom to not be offended, the freedom to not hear words or expressions that might make one uncomfortable.

So they believe that censoring and silencing others by law or policy is an acceptable way of protecting themselves from having to hear uncomfortable things. But in doing so, they are using, in the case of legally doing so, armed force of government to silence others. In the case of college campuses with speech codes, using the power to have other students thrown off campus for “offensive” speech. So, that is how many people define “freedom” now.

And when they use the armed government to act as a nanny state to take care of the people, what if some of the people don’t want to participate in the scheme? What would happen if you don’t pay your Social Security taxes (that you have not voluntarily contracted to participate in)? And more recently with ObamaCare if you didn’t buy health insurance? The armed goons of the IRS gestapo would come after you.

So, many people, not just those on the Left, want to force everyone into these collectivist government-run schemes, whether they like it or not! For them, the IRS-FBI-ETC Police State is a part of “freedom.”

The conservatives and nationalists are just as bad, in my view. They are a narcissistic crowd of “freedom for me but not for thee,” especially in their anti-immigration views, and trade as well. These anti-freedom worshipers of government central planning in the name of the Nation, want a POLICE STATE on the border, within the bureaucracy centered in Washington that includes electronic databases and requirements that Americans must submit their personal information as well as harassing both Americans and foreigners who want to travel, and a government Wall on the border. How “un-American” is all that?!

Sorry, statists. Actual “freedom” is presumably innocent people (not suspected of violating the person or property of others) traveling freely and not being harassed, intruded upon by others, not being stopped and asked to show their identification, not submitting personal information or fingerprints to the gubmint, not being searched, and so on.

A society of freedom in which people come and go as they please. Peaceful people who are non suspected of harming others have a right to be left alone.

But the nationalists and conservatives are paranoid, and believe that “harm” is when someone enters the territory without a government bureaucrat’s permission or without following some bureaucratic rules imposed by central planners, i.e. an act of disobedience, not “harm.”

But whether people are peaceful or not does not matter to the nationalists. Because nationalists are collectivists, if a few people within a group of foreigners have committed crimes, then we must blame all members of the whole group, peaceful or not. Yes, that is the idiocy we have coming from the nationalists and conservatives.

Robert Higgs recently wrote on nationalism,

What is this mystical magnetism that nationalism exerts on so many Americans? It is the wholly superstitious conviction that some special, deep, and overriding solidarity binds them to a particular group of almost 330 million strangers, people they have never met, never will meet, and with whom in many cases they have practically nothing in common. Indeed, in many cases, if any given American were to meet with a great many of his “fellow Americans,” he would find them altogether odious…

In history, nationalism has served as a powerful means whereby ambitious would-be national leaders have forged groups of unrelated and sometimes hostile people into a unitary political entity with the enlarged force that resides in sheer numbers. Nevertheless, the substantive moral irrelevance of nationalism arises from, if nothing else, the mere accident of one’s having been born within the boundaries that contentious rulers happen to have established in their struggles with the rulers of adjacent territories….

Yet, however morally irrelevant nationalism ought to be, it is in practice often of life-and-death importance, and during recent centuries, hundreds of millions of persons have regarded it as so important that they would fight and die in loyalty to the political leaders of “their” nation-state or gladly send their sons to be slaughtered in the same cause…

So today’s “nationalists” are authoritarians and collectivists who are opposed to freedom, and instead love government central planning in immigration and trade. They don’t get the principles of America’s founding.

And as mentioned above, many of those on the Left, like Sen. Cory Shnooker, Pocahantas, Koala Harris, and so on, they HATE actual freedom. And by actual freedom I mean, if you don’t want any involvement in government-run retirement schemes, you don’t get involved with government-run retirement schemes. Or health care schemes, or education, etc.

And when there is freedom, someone who owns a bakery will serve whomever the owner wants, and won’t serve whomever the owner doesn’t want. A Christian who doesn’t want to serve gays won’t do so, and gay bakers who don’t want to serve Christians won’t do so, and won’t be punished by laws and the police. You see, people who believe that the gubmint ought to steal money from the disobedient ones or send the police after them, are police statists. They believe in the police state. They are fascists.

And in freedom, you will educate your children however the hell you want to educate them, you will homeschool them, Christian school, secular school, or NO formal school, and Kamama Harris can’t do ANYTHING about it! That’s freedom. But she wants to send the police after disobedient parents who don’t follow Frau Harris’s orders! She HATES freedom, just like many of her ilk on the left, as well as the ignorant nationalists who believe in “freedom for me but not for thee.” Okay, I’m done.

More News and Commentary

Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal on the making of Juan Guaidó: U.S. regime change laboratory created Venezuela’s coup leader.

Moon of Alabama says that when “former” spies run wild, bad things happen.

Laurence Vance says that Donald Trump’s Government Wall will not solve America’s systemic problems.

Activist Post with an article on America’s worsening police state: Appeals Court says police do not need a reason to place Americans on a suspicious person list.

Matt Agorist on police insisting on determining who is or is not a legitimate journalist.

And Donald Livingston discusses the Southern critique of centralization.

Unprofessional News Media, Hysterical Social Media, and False Narratives

You’ve probably heard about the viral video of the MAGA-hat-wearing Catholic school students supposedly taunting a Native American person at an event in Washington. The media, celebrities and social media were all condemning of the students, and their own school administrators also condemned them.

But it turned out, thanks to the posting of the full almost 2-hour video of the whole thing, that it was other people there who were taunting the students. The students had not done anything wrong. In fact, given that they in fact were the real targets of racist remarks and threats, they handled themselves well.

Tom Woods, who details the entire episode on his blog (so you don’t have to watch the video for nearly two hours), suggests that any parent whose kids find themselves in such a situation should get a lawyer, etc. I totally agree.

But we have the mainstream media who merely repeat propaganda based on a brief video excerpt and make accusations without any checking, without any further investigating.

Besides this episode and the viral nature of false accusations against and smearing of students merely wearing “MAGA” hats, more recently also was the BuzzFeed false accusation of Donald Trump allegedly directing Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

Apparently the Mueller people publicly disputed BuzzFeed’s claim. But the media were all over the story, without any verification whatsoever.

And of course the recent New York Times story on the FBI’s viewing Trump as a “national security threat,” with the news media and social media eating all that up as well.

In the Times article, as Glenn Greenwald points out, it wasn’t until the ninth paragraph that it states, “No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the special counsel’s office both declined to comment.”

No evidence has emerged…”! Hmmm.

But apparently we can’t expect the news media to read that far into an article, so it seems. We really need alternative media now, for “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

And regarding the Russia-collusions story and the Mueller investigation, I have tried to get the whole story out there, or, the story behind the story, as Larry Glick used to say.

On Pamela Geller and the Right to Offend Muslims and Everyone Else

Thanks to Pamela Geller, once again the talk shows are ablaze in their discussions on freedom of speech and what the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects and doesn’t protect. Even NPR talked about Geller’s recent publicity stunt in Garland, Texas, a contest for people to draw the Prophet Mohammad. Knowing how extreme some Muslims are in their intolerance of any criticism or satire of Mohammad or Islam, Geller seemed to want to push the envelope, almost as though she wanted to cause the shooting which occurred after the event, in which two self-radicalized jihadis were shot and killed by security personnel.

Sadly, there are some people who don’t understand the difference between words which are direct threats or provocations (e.g. “I’m going to shoot you,” etc., etc.) and words to criticize, mock, insult, or offend others (e.g. “Fat people should lose weight,” “Dom DeLouise is a fatso,” “Islam is extremely repressive,” “Israel oppresses Arabs,” “Jews are greedy,” “Christians are greedy,” etc., etc.). Those people are saying that Geller’s having such a Mohammad drawing contest, knowing that it would offend Muslims, can be considered a provocation or a “threat,” and so it shouldn’t be protected free speech.

From what I’ve heard so far, such attitudes are coming from the Left. However, during the 1980s many on the Left came to the defense of artist Andres Serrano when his disgusting “Piss Christ” was the controversy back then, and they defended the homoerotic and sadomasochistic artist Robert Mapplethorpe and his offensive works which sparked controversies around the same time. Oooh, the Christians and loud conservatives were up in arms over all that stuff, that’s for sure. But for the “liberals,” who now want to ban “hate speech,” the anti-Christian and sicko-sexual stuff is righto with them.

And there are others who can’t distinguish between mere words and actual physical actions. On one NPR show yesterday, On Point, a guest compared the Mohammad cartoon contest to throwing rocks in someone’s window. I couldn’t believe it. Apparently, some people are so thin-skinned they perceive some manner of speech or expression as being an actual physical action. Do they want to arrest and jail the offender, charged with assault or destruction of property? In Saudi Arabia, their rulers and minions behead those who are “blasphemers” and who “insult Islam” or Mohammad. Of course, Saudi Prince So-and-So obviously has direct communication with the Prophet Mohammad and knows for sure that the Prophet has been “insulted,” and so followers should act accordingly.

Some commenters have argued that Geller’s Mohammad drawing contest amounted to a form of “incitement.” She incited the jihadi fanatics to go over there to shoot up the place. No, not really. She may have provoked them or angered them, but because there is something called “free will,” those two wackos went over to the contest area and acted by their own free will. They deliberately chose to do that. The same goes for those accused of “inciting a riot,” by the way, such as Michael Brown’s stepfather in Ferguson who yelled at the crowd to “Burn this ***** down!” as though his speech had criminal responsibility for others’ subsequent acts of arson. No, only the rioters who set fire to cars or buildings — acting on their own free will — are responsible for their own acts, as Murray Rothbard noted.

Even the conservatives are confused on Geller’s right to hold whatever contest she wanted to have, regardless how offensive. While some conservative commentators such as Jeffrey Kuhner and Megyn Kelly have been defending Geller and Co.’s freedom of speech rights to hold that Mohammad-drawing contest, other conservatives (as well as people on the Left) such as those at National Review have been critical of the whole thing.

But while some conservatives defend the right to criticize Islam and “sharia law,” I wonder how many of them defend the right to criticize Israel. Not many. As I have noted before, criticizing Israel is to many people a blasphemous act, and such critics are immediately viewed as “anti-Semitic,” etc. That is because criticizing Israel is the epitome of “political incorrectness” in our modern, intolerant and ignorant Amerika. For instance, many conservatives protested the Metropolitan Opera’s performances of The Death of Klinghoffer (an opera based on the Palestinian terrorist hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro), and demanded that such performances be canceled. They referred to the opera as anti-Semitic or Jew-hating, which it was not, and as “glorifying terrorism,” which it didn’t. Obviously, these critics probably didn’t even see the opera but wanted to proudly show the world their ignorance. Does Pamela Geller defend the right of the Met to put on that opera? Hmmm.

But many of these same people who defend the right to criticize the entire religion of Islam and make fun of the Prophet Mohammad just cannot hear any criticism of Israel (and I mean the state of Israel to be specific, not the religion of Judaism). They probably wouldn’t like my bringing up what a generally racist society Israel is, as shown in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll. But we’re not allowed to say the truth about all that. Let’s all live in a world of myths about Israel, and if someone brings up the truth about it, label him “anti-Semite.” And we can’t talk about Israeli soldiers’ war crimes against Palestinian innocents, so that is why an organization called Breaking the Silence had to be created. Let’s stifle and bury the truth, so that the others won’t know about the sad truths of modern “civilization.”

So, I can’t criticize Israel because the Israel Firsters get all upset over it, and an opera can’t be performed so shut it down and don’t let opera-goers decide for themselves whether it’s “anti-Semitic.” And also — speaking of myths — I can’t express skepticism of so-called human-caused global warming or I’ll be called a “denier” in the same way that Holocaust-deniers are called “deniers,” even though we know the Nazi-perpetrated Jewish Holocaust really did occur, but human-caused global warming? Not so sure about that one. The warmists who rely on junk science and computer models but not actual empirical data want to actually throw in jail skeptics or those who disagree with them. They and the anti-Muslim collectivists seem too much like the witch hunters and Inquisitionists if you ask me. Can you people possibly evolve yourselves into the 21st Century? Ya think?

And of course there are those people who call you a racist if you criticize Obama, his fascist health plan a.k.a. ObamaCare, and all of Obama’s terrible policies that have nothing to do with his race but with his incompetence, corruption and criminality. But, because some people are so obsessed with race they really believe that such criticism of Obama = racism. And freedom of speech also means I can make fun of Obama’s alleged homosexuality (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and that he was an alleged Chicago bathhouse frequenter, just as I can make fun of Michelle Obama the food and nutrition buttinsky.

So I say good for Pamela Geller for in some way stimulating a renewed debate on freedom of speech vs. censorship, mere words vs. actual physical violence, for waking people up to the dangers of Islamic extremism and “sharia law” that’s hiding under our beds like the communists in the 1950s, even though she completely ignores (or supports) our own government’s starting wars of aggression overseas these past 25 years which have done nothing but provoke said Muslims to become jihadi fanatics and killers in the first place.