They Care Not for Freedom

As opposed to the “cultural libertarians” such as the horde of pop-liberals and nauseating anti-feminists on YouTube and the like, we on the Right (or beyond) should never, ever be found whining about a lack of free speech. As expressed brilliantly in several Tweets by Mr. Scientism a couple of weeks back:

Kazam_screenshot_00000

This is the problem with so-called “moderates.” Instead of having the balls to actually work to prevent the Left or other morons from doing damage to society, they’d rather complain that their opponents aren’t “playing by the rules” — well of course not, dummy, and why the heck would they? The Left wants to take power to radically transform society and, in essence, human nature forever. This was the goal of Bolshevism, to create a new man free from the shackles of capitalist exploitation; a new man of the future and of progress. This is why they destroyed the churches, murdered religious practitioners, imprisoned biologists and cultural figures, and all the rest, because they sought to overcome the old ways, the old rules, the old standards; anything which indicated the past or history had to be destroyed and forgotten, because in doing so one can only look to the present and to the future. This is precisely what contemporary politicians in the European Union are aching to do, to bring about a “new Europe”; a “Europe of the future” full of thrall coffee-coloured consumers ruled by a cosmopolitan cult. They want to break from the past and enter the future, and to do this they must break away from the standards and paradigms of the past. And who on Earth is going to stop them?

The late Jonathan Bowden in a speech about Leftism gives us a very good example of this type of thinking in relation to political correctness in Britain:

[Ken] Livingstone was asked last year why the Greater London Authority didn’t celebrate Saint George’s Day, and he said, “Because it’s racist.” He said, “It’s a fascist ceremony.” Livingstone is real. He really is a Left-winger. And he said, “It’s a fascist ceremony of indigenous white racialism; and we celebrate a multicultural London.” He said, “Any of this indigenous stuff brings the British National Party and the Right in this country.” And he’s totally right — and he’s totally ideological on one level, because he’s a hard Leftist, not one of these soft-spoken Leftists. He began in an anarchist group called “Solidarity” on the extreme Left. He’s come in a bit into the Left-wing of the Labour Party. He’s always been a populist Leftist and individualist go-his-own-track politician, but he’s real about these sorts of issues. Far more truthful in his own way than Brown or Blair. He gives it to you straight and in reverse.

He was asked about political correctness in the eighties when the G.L.C. existed, a big London Forum if you like, that Thatcher later abolished. He said, “Political correctness? Forget all this garbage in the media that it’s about Ba Ba Black Sheep and banning gingerbread men and silliness. Political correctness is about imposing hardline ideas to enforce racial and gender equality. It’s hard Left ideas, which we’re imposing on people who don’t want to join progressive modernity.” This is the real Left talking, not shallow stuff around the edges. Political correctness is about manipulating power so people can’t say they’re against what’s happening now. That’s why it was introduced. Everything else is just fluff, and that’s why people have to realise that if they’re going to stand up against this, it’s not risk-free, and it’s difficult. That’s why people are averse to doing it.

Those who think in this way aren’t simply out for your worthless freedom, they’re out to redesign civilisation as we know it, to remake man in line with their perverse ideology — freedom be damned. To be pro-free speech is a half-measure which has, demonstrably, achieved absolutely nothing. When the culture shifts and people are educated in such a way as to make them conflate such a concept with oppression — subrationally, mind you — then words of “freedom” fall on deaf ears. You’re asking the man about to stab you to put his knife down in case somebody gets hurt.

Freedom of speech can only be used, if we wish to engage in ideological warfare, as a weapon in and of itself. Not as a standard, but as a force. Just like progressives have used freedom of speech as an excuse — nay, a justification — for imposing Left-wing, socially-degenerative trends upon people and society, i.e. rights for sexual and other minorities, so the reactionaries and others must turn around and pursue the offensive and claim that — yes — the Left in all its forms must go, it must be obliterated. We must be intolerant of forces which seek to cause damage and harm. And although the fact of the matter is that most of this sort of thinking exists in an already degenerate matrix (the Left/Right paradigm, for example), the only way to return to something of substance is one step at a time. We — reactionaries, Rightists, etc. — must gain ground, not secede it. This must and can only begin with the individual, of course, because in terms of political-cultural conflict, we’re exploring questions of a hypothetical nature for the most part.

It’s about time that even the less radical understand that the very nature of Leftist ideology is revolutionary and thus detached from fixed principles. This is why the student Left in Britain can cast aside its anticapitalism and anticorporatism and hold hands with the European Union in revolt against the white working class and those of a patriotic bent, something best demonstrated by the response to the Brexit vote. Leftists will cast aside their apparent principles at the tip of a hat when it benefits them ideologically and politically.

They espouse both egalitarianism and the belief that blacks and whites, in the American context, must be treated differently in education; they espouse love and support for the working class and yet they support tax and immigration policies which harm them; they claim that everything European is oppressive and intrinsically unjust, whilst their entire philosophy is Western and a continuation of Western responses to Western propositions; they claim originality and being the underdog, yet they’ve been in power for centuries and their values dominate contemporary society.

The Left is and always has been a muddle of violent responses to pre-established norms, refracted through different lenses to answer different questions in varying ways. A whirlwind of naysaying, the Left cares about power, not principle.

Free speech only matters, and can only be called upon, in the sense of artillery to despatch redpills at high velocity. Blathering on about the “regressive Left” (all Leftism is regressive) or the “cultural authoritarians” (decrying “cultural authoritarians” is an authoritarian action) just proves the innate weakness and formlessness of the actors espousing such drivel.

Order is eternal, it is immutable and irrevocable. The civilisations of space which we on the authentic Right wish to re-encounter (or close enough) exist outside of the paradigms of modernity. Importantly, such civilisation exists beyond concern for negative liberty which so ensnares many a would-be reactionary. Cast aside your plastic shackles, Western man, and care not for being “oppressed,” but for inhibiting yourself based upon laziness and fear.

Moreover, should you ever hear a friend whinge about free speech, tell him that he has the freedom to shut the fuck up.

Advertisements
Adam

As a man among men, I can learn.

7 thoughts on “They Care Not for Freedom

  1. Very forthright and direct, Adam. Well done.

    >It’s about time that even the less radical understand that the very nature of Leftist ideology is revolutionary and thus detached from fixed principles.

    A thousand times this. A leftist is ultimately utilitarian in their political ambitions. Why else did Lenin, Stalin and Mao murder millions in the name of ‘utopia’? The classical liberal universalist response is entirely ineffectual. Playing the victim and vying for sympathy is not the way of the Right.

    However, on principled and moral grounds, I would support freedom of speech in a potential LARPstate (granted, in an ideal society the virtue of the citizenry should always have primacy over the laws of the land. )

    1. Likewise, actually. But it can, should tradition collapse, easily become a vessel for degeneracy and ideology. There is no “moderate” middle-ground, despite what the pop-liberals like to believe. One is either for order or against it; and virtually everyone bleating about the “regressive Left” or “free speech” is a Leftist themselves, only in a subtler way. There have to be structures in society and within individuals which guide freedom, which direct it, which use it as a vessel for goodness.

      1. Perhaps this sounds a bit to much like the ‘market place of ideas’ meme, but I think ideas need to be freely expressed and debated in order for them to be destroyed. Censorship has a great ability to backfire. However, it is not censorship over the last century that has defeated the Right, rather it is their cowardice and arrogance.

        As Isiah Berlin said when speaking on Joseph de Maistre. “The only way in which you can really secure a solid basis for government, which nobody would ever be able to shake, is by making it impervious to reason. How is this done? By founding societies upon foundations so dark, so mysterious and so terrifying that anyone who dares approach them will find himself immediately subject to the most hideous and enormous penalties.”

        Speech laws will not change this fact.

  2. We shouldn’t be following the old conservative ideal of “Standing Athwart history yelling ‘STOP!'”. We Should aspire to be driving the bus, running over anyone who gets in our way.

  3. Excellent piece Adam. A battle cry. The realisation, albeit a very late one, that there is no excuse for bemoaning and bitching, they are deadly serious and I have to chose a side.

    I always avoided the populist Right-wing parties because they seemed to me to be ineptly run, had no image savvy, were always on the back foot and therefore could not gain traction. And, being a public servant, was fearful of any association with such groups. The confidence, boldness and media savvy of the AltRight and the reactosphere has changed all of that. It’s infectious, has youth, vitality and most important of all, it’s unashamedly humourous and humour can win many a man over.

  4. As Gen. Jorge Vedela, former Argentine dictator, once wisely said:

    We consider it a great crime to work against the Western and Christian style of life: it is not just the bomber but the ideologist who is the danger.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s