“Fuck Your Free Speech”: Leftism, Libertarianism and the Death of Free Speech
It’s true, you know: foul speech is a sure sign of a foul mind. It’s also a sure sign of a foul ideology. That’s why the f-word is so popular among leftists. It packs so much into so little: self-righteousness, aggression, intolerance, lack of self-control, contempt for reasoned debate, and the unashamed rejection of civilized values. You could say that the f-word is a bawl of barbarism. And here it is in action, illustrating all those leftist values, among students protesting against eugenics and “scientific racism”:
A bawl of barbarism as students protest eugenics and “scientific racism”
The faces of five protesting students are visible. Four of them seem to be either White gentiles or Jews. But the young woman holding up a sign saying “FUCK YOUR FREE SPEECH” seems to be an East Asian, quite possibly with a high IQ and from a long line of civilized, law-abiding ancestors. Nevertheless, she wants to destroy “your free speech” — that is, the free speech not just of Charles Murray, but of Whites in general. After all, whatever her precise origins in East Asia, that young woman and her co-ethnics don’t come from a culture that values free speech or has any tradition of free speech. And now that she’s in America she’s working to “fuck free speech.” No sane observer of political reality should be surprised by this.
The glass house of free speech
But I know a group of intelligent, educated and articulate people who are surprised by it. The group are called libertarians. Alas, you can lead libertarians to reality, but you can’t make them think. For example, most libertarians are passionate supporters of both free speech and open borders. This is a lot like supporting both glass houses and throwing stones. And indeed, free speech is a lot like a house built of glass. Free speech is rare and fragile and much easier to destroy than to create. It hasn’t existed in the vast majority of cultures for the vast majority of human history.
Rare and fragile: The Crystal Palace in London
And it’s no coincidence that nineteenth-century Britain saw both the rise of free speech and the construction of the Crystal Palace, a giant house of glass built for the Great Exhibition of 1851. To create the ideological structure of free speech and the physical structure of the Crystal Palace required high intelligence, ingenuity, cooperation and, you might say, a love of light and openness. But the Crystal Palace burned down in 1936 (shortly before another interesting burning, as we shall see). The Palace was rare and fragile and didn’t last long. Free speech faces the same fate. After all, Britain has imported millions of non-White stone-throwers and arsonists from the Third World. They don’t build glass houses: they smash and burn them.
This is why libertarians and secularists on the left can’t be honest when they defend the glass house of free speech against its stone-throwing and gasoline-pouring non-White enemies. For example, when non-White Muslims machine-gunned cartoonists and writers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, the staunchly secularist Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson responded not with a bang, but a whimper:
Staunch secularist Martin Rowson responds to the Charlie Hebdo massacre
Rowson didn’t dare to draw Muhammad, because he was (quite rightly) scared of being murdered for intruding on something sacred to Muslims. But look at these two examples of how Rowson has regularly intruded on something sacred to Christians, the death of Christ on the cross:
Banal blasphemies: Martin Rowson’s unfunny crucifixion cartoons
Rowson’s crucifixion cartoons — and there are lots more where those two came from — are both unfunny and foul-minded. Rowson is effectively saying “Fuck you!” to Christianity. His cartoons are banally blasphemous and he seems to enjoy dragging the crucifixion in where it isn’t relevant. After all, he knows that he’s in no danger from effete modern Christians. But when Muslims machine-gun Rowson’s fellow cartoonists in the name of Muhammad, he doesn’t dare even draw, let alone mock or satirize, anything representative of Islam and least of all Muhammad himself. In short, Rowson is frightened of Islam. He isn’t frightened of Christianity.
Whites are to blame!
And why is he frightened of Islam? Because mass immigration has firmly established Islam and its violent adherents on British soil. Muslim immigration has been disastrous for free speech, but Rowson and other secularist leftists can’t admit this. Nor can libertarians, who knew instantly what was to blame for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It wasn’t Muslim immigration, which had flooded France with millions of illiberal, corrupt aliens who didn’t believe in free speech. No, not at all, it was the policies of the French government and the attitudes of French Whites. The government hadn’t supported free speech strongly enough and Whites hadn’t argued for Enlightenment values hard enough.
If they had, then all would have been well. All those millions of low-IQ Muslims from illiberal cultures with absolutely no tradition of free speech would have embraced the Enlightenment, founded thriving Voltaire societies, and chuckled wryly when Charlie Hebdo published a foul-minded cartoon of a naked Muhammad bending over to display a star over his anus and a pair of dangling testicles. It would have been so easy to turn those non-White Third-Worlders into dedicated students of Voltaire and fans of Charlie Hebdo. But French Whites betrayed their Muslim brothers and sisters by not sufficiently promoting the Enlightenment values that, deep down, Muslims all over the world are longing to embrace.
And the same was true in Britain when Muslims in the heavily enriched northern city of Bradford set fire to Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses (1987). For libertarians, Whites were again to blame, not mass immigration. As in France, Whites hadn’t promoted free speech and the Enlightenment hard enough to all those non-White Third-Worlders who, deep down, were longing to embrace it. Again, it would have been so easy to turn the Muslims into dedicated students of John Stuart Mill. Again, Whites betrayed their Muslim brothers and sisters. Or so many libertarians continue to argue. They’re not being honest and I think that, deep down or otherwise, they know it. That’s why so many of them didn’t raise a squeak of protest when a gentle and tolerant Muslim called Asad Shah was stabbed to death on British soil by an avowed enemy of Asad Shah’s free speech.
But libertarians weren’t alone in making little of that brutal and portentous crime. Asad Shah was the victim of what I call a “meteor murder,” that is, a murder that flashes across the headlines and then disappears, despite bearing great political and cultural significance. Or rather: a meteor murder flashes and disappears precisely because it bears political and cultural significance. The leftist media have a narrative of White evil and non-White saintliness. If a murder or other significant crime contradicts that narrative, it’s meteorized.
“Hang the blasphemer!”
And Asad Shah’s murder did contradict that narrative, just like the viciously sadistic murders of the White teenagers Kris Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan in 2005, and the horrible mass rapes of elderly White women in London between 1992 and 2009. In all these cases, non-Whites were the perpetrators, so all these cases flashed across the headlines and disappeared. Similarly, Asad Shah was an Ahmadi Muslim stabbed to death by a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who thought that Ahmadi Muslims are death-worthy heretics (and Tanveer Ahmed still thinks that in his $50,000-a-year prison-cell). Leftists dropped Shah’s murder down the memory-hole because it didn’t fit their narrative of non-White saintliness.
Pakistani Muslims express their longing for free speech
And libertarians ignored Shah’s murder because it didn’t fit their narrative of how Muslims and other non-Whites would happily embrace free speech if only Whites worked harder to make them realize their true desires. Alas for libertarians, there is abundant evidence, both contemporary and historical, that Muslims despise free speech and are eager to destroy it wherever it rears its repulsive, White-supremacist snout. After all, Tanveer Ahmed was inspired by a Pakistani Muslim called Mumtaz Qadri, a body-guard who assassinated his employer, the Muslim politician Salmaan Taseer, because Taseer had “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws” and taken up the cause of “Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman … sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.”
A Pakistani book celebrates the martyr-hero Ilm-ud-Din
And Mumtaz Qadri had been inspired in his turn by Ilm-ud-Din, a young Muslim who stabbed the Hindu publisher Mahashay Rajpal to death in 1929 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. That took place under the British Raj and Ilm-ud-Din faced British justice: he was hanged for murder. His fellow Muslims, by contrast, celebrated his forthright defence of the Prophet and in modern Pakistan he is known as Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din Shahid, that is, Hero Ilm-ud-Din the Martyr. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Mumtaz Qadri became ghazi, “hero,” when he assassinated his employer, and shahid, “martyr,” when he was executed for murder by the Pakistani authorities. The judge who passed the death sentence on him had to flee the country. If he hadn’t, he would sooner or later have met the same fate as Salmaan Taseer, Mahashay Rajpal and many others, including Dr Muhammad Shakil Auj, a “Pakistani academic known for promoting liberal views on Islam” who was “accused of committing blasphemy in a speech he made in the US.” He too was shot to death.
Muslims in Maryland
In other words, there is a long and vibrant tradition of censorship-by-murder among the Muslims of what is now Pakistan (and elsewhere). After Asad Shah’s murder in Glasgow, a human rights lawyer called Aamer Anwar announced: “We do not want to see the importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK.” In other words, Anwar thinks the Britain can import Pakistanis without importing Pakistani culture. Like the libertarians and secularists who think the same, he’s either stupid or dishonest or both. The United States has also imported Pakistanis and so has also imported murderous Pakistani culture. This is the flyer for a mosque in Maryland that hosted a celebration of the Hero-Martyr Mumtaz Qadri:
Maryland mosque and martyr with machine-gun: Muslims in the US celebrate the murderer Mumtaz Qadri
Note how the Urdu script protects Muslims from outside scrutiny just as Hebrew or Yiddish script protects Jews. Even some libertarians and secularists might have second thoughts about Muslim immigration if the flyer were in English and openly stated the nature of the celebration and its martyred hero. But the mosque probably uses Urdu for uncontroversial topics too, because keeping up a foreign language is an excellent way to avoid assimilation and maintain cohesion.
Muslims assert their rights
And Muslims will happily burn books in public and march against free speech, as Britain saw during the Satanic Verses controversy in the 1980s. A Labour minister in Tony Blair’s government revealed the solipsistic nature of leftism when he reminisced to a journalist about “a meeting of Muslims at his constituency surgery … during which one of them had taken Rushdie’s book and kicked it furiously across the room.” The minister, probably the part-Jewish Jack Straw, commented: “That’s when I knew that everything had changed.” No, all that had changed was the then-MP’s awareness of what Muslims are like. After all, Muslims in Britain were burning books and marching against free speech long before the 1980s. They did both of those things in London way back in 1938, two years after the destruction by fire of the Crystal Palace:
Muslims “assert their rights” by book-burning and marching against free speech in London, 1938
Members of the Jamiat-ul-Muslimin, a British Muslim organisation whose members were predominantly working-class South Asians, gathered at one of their regular meetings in King’s Hall on Commercial Road, east London. Here, according to the Guardian of 13 August 1938, they “ceremoniously committed to the flames” a copy of H. G. Wells’s A Short History of the World because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive. This was followed by a protest march by members of the organisation to India House, Aldwych, which accommodated the Indian High Commission in London’s West End. Contrary to the public perception that Britain’s Muslim minority began to find a voice of dissent only as recently as the 1980s, here we have evidence of a group of working-class East End Muslims marching west into the heart of London to assert their rights as Muslims and plead their cause with government officials. (Muslims Protest Against H. G. Wells Book in 1930s Britain, The Huffington Post, 19th September 2012)
Note the approving tone of that report in the leftist Huffington Post. By burning a book and demanding censorship, Muslims were “asserting their rights.” The authors of the report were the leftist academics Rehana Ahmed, “Senior Lecturer in English Studies at Teesside University,” and Florian Stadtler, “Research Fellow in Literature at The Open University.” You might expect even leftist academics to disapprove of book-burning, which has uncomfortable associations with the Nazis. But book-burning is obviously acceptable to leftists when non-Whites are “asserting their rights” thereby. Rehana Ahmed herself is non-White and Florian Stadtler, apparently non-English, is undoubtedly a staunch anti-racist and supporter of open borders to the Third World.
Poisoning Western civilization
And note that these two bibliocaustophilic academics drew on the leftist Guardian for details of the book-burning and march in 1938. Leftists saw clearly before the Second World War that Muslim immigration would be very bad for free speech and secularism. After the Second World War, leftists fully supported Muslim immigration. They then gasped in horror at the way Muslims behaved towards Salman Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo. Or some leftists gasped in horror, anyway. Others were happy to see Muslims begin their assault on Western civilization. As for libertarians: if they were sincere about supporting both free speech and mass immigration, then they were also exceedingly stupid.
But I don’t think some libertarians were or are sincere. After all, great figures of libertarianism, like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, were Jewish. I would read the movement as yet another way for Jews to encourage individualism and atomization among White gentiles who are under collectivist attack. By supporting open borders, libertarianism has helped to kill free speech. Leftists say: “Fuck your free speech.” Muslims say: “Damn your free speech.” In Muslim eyes, it’s a literally damnable doctrine whose practitioners are worthy of death and consignment to the fires of Jahannam, the Muslim hell. Muslim immigration is poison for free speech and Western civilization. But libertarians won’t admit this. Nor will Martin Rowson and the other staunch secularists at the Guardian. So let’s end with a cartoonist who is prepared to tell the truth about Islam, leftism and free speech.
A cartoonist tells the truth about Islam, leftism and free speech
Right wingers say F—K all the time.
[mod: flank? flock? farook?]
Yes, leftist Jews have made vulgarity part of everyday language so that many people speak that way, even in casual conversation. Someone has to make a conscious effort to break the habit. But I think leftists can be very critical of vulgar language when it’s spoken by someone that is not a leftist, being the hypocrites that they are,
“Right wingers say F—K all the time. ”
You can’t even bring yourself to spell the word Folk.
Because when Whites say it it makes you go all verklempt.
That might be bad for you. But that’s not our fault.
So Fork Off!
Saying “f—k all anti-whites” would be several things:
– not right-wing, but right minded
– fitting anti-white conduct and mindset
– effective and short
– and still very mild
Kingdoms in conflict, kingdoms in conflict! It is one of the reasons why I never believed in the separation of Church and State. Was Britain not a Christian nation? The monarchs of her past would be horrified, truly horrified! What bothers me though the most is education and the complete lack of it where the bible is concerned. Indeed how can a people so well educated with so many great schools, colleges, universities and a history like hers and a people so totally and completely ignorant of everything called God and religion is simply unbelievable shocking really? There are days when I would like to visit the graves of John Wesley, Oswald Chambers and Arthur Wallis and so many other greats and ripping up the grass yeah ground would scream you were betrayed, we were all betrayed by traitors within our midst. It’s as simple as that! And now that climate change has arrived and crop circles which is Divine Communication barring another great awakening I’m afraid it will be these words that will find its fulfillment ultimately:
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its people and their animals, even if these three men—Noah, Daniel and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord. (Ezekiel 14:12–14)
That computer disk of character too is a warning to all and sums it up quite succinctly:
“Much Pain But Still Time” https://twitter.com/GerryFo62113279/status/1307301129177296896
If one doesn’t understand “Still Time” well if that doesn’t prove my words above about the ignorance of the Bible!
It has to be said that Christianity is based on judaïsm. They (and islam and communism) are the same belief systems, just behind different masks. It’s all coming from the sekt of the zaddikim. And it’s all destructive for what we as humans really should be. I’m always surprised when people automatically choose Christianity as the solution, when judaïsm, islam or the jewish communism seem the threat.
Speaking of Britain and Christianity, Queen Elizabeth II is very likely the last British monarch whom truly embodies and internalizes the ‘divine calling’ and ‘sacred duty’ of her throne. The world will never see the likes of her ever again.
She’s only a nominal Christian and betrayed her nation, and her sovereignty, when she signed, gave the royal assent to, 6 EUSSR treaties.
Dear Mister Bartlett & Truth Not Doctrine,
First Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not a total authentic monarch. The British monarchy is only such in form, but the matter, the quintessential that constitutes being a royal head of state is only a facade. Authentic monarchy calls for Imperium. She and those before her going back for sometime have no more power than at saying yea or nay to a law than when a President of The United States has the power to decide and scrutinise who shall be or shall not be appointed to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank. He’s told who to appoint and that is that. The same with Her Majesty Queen Elisabeth II. Authentic monarchy ended in Britain in the seventeenth century with the foundation of the Commonwealth of England and in 1701 with the Act of Settlement, And it is this Act which takes us to the question of a divine calling. It excluded all Roman Apostolic Catholics from ascending to the throne. The British monarch is the supreme governor of the Church of England, who are the Anglicans, another facade set up as an antagonistic entity to Rome and a noxious symbol of the deconstruction of authentic European unity which began with the Reformation, which at the end of the day reformed nothing. Of her sacred duty, well this is only a materialistic flag waving illusion. And as far as divine calling, this is impossible if one is a heretic. Article 28 of the Thirty-NIne Articles which she abides by is blasphemy because it denies Transubstantiation considering it repugnant. Mister Bartlett, Queen Elisabeth II and her family for the most part are repulsive. If this monarchy were truly sacred and she had a conscious there would not be any mass migration of non-Europeans into England, as in the rest of Europe, and the legalization of abortion and homosexuality. The British Monarchy is also part and parcel of the New World Order. Have you ever seen her discussing the Desert Storm War with the then United States Secretary of State James Addison Baker III? Disgusting! Anglo-American global existentialism corruption at work all over again. Much more could be given as an example to so-called divine calling and sacred duty.
Allow me to state, that I am not anti-Monarchy, and I know also the insanities that have taken place with authentic monarchies who are also Roman Apostolic Catholic or Orthodox. But we must never destroy the principle because of bad exponents. Neither do I omit that the present monarchy in England is in some way in a state of imprisonment: do it or else, and it has been this way since the end of the seventeenth century. God Bless, Aristo Boho. .
The concept of free speech is wonderfully simple: you either have free speech or a range of permitted opinion. No ifs or buts.
Milton’s words perhaps contain more significance than he realised, for a society only becomes wholeheartedly tyrannical when censorship allows no effective opposition. To take a most dramatic instance, if the Nazis had been forced by frequently expressed contrary public opinion to explain their policy of genocide to the German people, it is highly improbable that the whole grisly business would have been mooted, for we know that even without any serious public opposition the Nazis went to considerable lengths, in the midst of a most tremendous war, to persuade the mass of Germans that Jews were simply being resettled or, at worst, used as forced labour.
Without free expression, democracy cannot function because the whole purpose of democracy is to allow any view to be put forward for public acceptance or rejection.
But although free expression is a golden prize, it is also one of the hardest things for men (of all political stamps) to practise, there being the most magnetic temptation for anyone to engage in the self-serving delusion that the suppression of contrary opinion is not an abrogation of free expression but the legitimate exclusion of dangerous ideas. Milton himself fell prey to this temptation once his political “side” gained the ascendancy during the Commonwealth and Protectorate.
The idea that free expression can exist whilst restrictions on what may be said are in force is a literal nonsense because free expression is indivisible. Its essence is that it is not a negotiable quality; you either have it or a range of permitted opinion which may be altered at any point by the ruling elite, the mass media, unelected pressure groups, terrorists and the Mob.
Let this quote from MIlton be your guide:
‘And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose upon the earth, so truth be in the field [and] we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who ever knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter…’ [Milton – Areogapitica].
Read more at https://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/free-expression-or-permitted-opinion-that-is-the-choice/
“…free speech or a range of permitted opinion”
Succinctly put Robert Henderson. For far too long I thought I had free speech when what I actually had was the freedom to choose among a range of permitted opinion.
For example I had the freedom to think that the German people as a whole were directly responsible for genociding Jews during WW2 or I could think they were fooled by the Nazi government into thinking that there was no genocide But I could not think that there was no actual genocide. That was outside the range of permitted opinions that I had the freedom to choose among because it was never presented by the media or educational establishment as an opinion but rather as an irrational antisemetic “denial” of fact. Judging by your example of the possible benefits of free speech in history,
YOU are still choosing within that permitted range of opinion that I for so long had about the “Holocaust” and which I confused with actual free speech. Perhaps that just suggests that we do not have free speech. Which, of course, we don’t
I respectfully suggest to you that it is a mistake to think that Areopagitica is a brief for universal free speech or unlimited freedom of expression (comparable, e.g., to Mill’s “On Liberty”) or even the prohibition of prior restraint. It is quite the contrary. Milton—a profound and sensible political thinker and, underneath his more than occasionally evident bloodthirstiness, a pious and humane man (unlike his murderous friend Cromwell)—understood that every stable society had to have absolutes, criticism of which, much less their flouting, would not be tolerated. For him the primary absolute was the Reformation, and only the select few who met the implied standard of the quotation from Euripides that stands as the essay’s epigraph were to be accorded permission—rather, the obligation—to speak unfettered.
Read the essay again, this time with the utmost care and without the destructive preconception that absolute freedom of expression will lead somewhere, anywhere, other than the dungeon of modernity in which the Jews have imprisoned us all.
@ Robert Henderson: If I understand you correctly, you think that the Germans had a “policy of genocide”. If this is true, you are way behind the curve. Nowadays there are several very good people in jail in Germany (like Alfred Schaefer, https://freespeechmonika.wordpress.com/), because they openly talked about the mountain of irrefutable proof there is that the perpetrator-victim roles have been inverted. And that there was no “policy of genocide” and no 6 million and certainly not by gassing. When in court, they can not, I repeat: can not bring in that mountain of irrefutable proof, bacause the judges will add months or even years of jailtime extra for doing so. There’s your dystopian free speech. And liberty.
Of course, one would think that atheistic leftists would be against all religions as a matter of principle. So the reverence they show Muslims is indeed incomprehensible. But there’s logic and then there’s tactics. Tactically, it’s good for Leftists to align with Muslims, in the short run at least, in order to achieve their own, and others’, cultural and biological self-eradication.
I’ve spoken with PhD-holding leftists, brilliant people and much more intelligent than I, and have often pointed out the obvious illogic in their selective favor of one, or two, Abrahamic religions while subjecting the third to complete condemnation. Uniformly, I’ve never gotten a reply, just blank stares or dagger looks as they then accuse me of being a closet Christian fundamentalist bigot for the mere sin of pointing out a contradiction. But I don’t have a PhD.
As for Libertarians and Open Borders, there’s the matter of the private property right inherent in the nature of the nation-state as a corporate entity. So, once again, the contradiction in this type of “Left-Libertarian” belief really stretches the imagination. Without borders, all property becomes communal automatically as long as sufficient numbers of people express simply the interest to use any property at will. If a group of people is denied the natural right to delineate their own national property, upon what moral right does an individual delineate his own personal property?
Good article by Tobias Langdon. He is right. Non-whites are hostile to free speech, which is as fragile as a glass house or the Crystal Palace. The mass importation of non-whites is certain to destroy it. That is well proven by the author in this article.
And libertarians are not sincere when they advocate both free speech and mass migration. No one can be that stupid. In particular, the jews, Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. They have malicious intent when they promote mass third-world migration to our nations. Jews open the borders to the invaders, because they are disloyal.
Jews are passionately hostile to all free speech, except porn. Jews love porn and make money producing it, promoting it and selling it. Porn is jewish free speech, the only kind that’s sacred to them. All other kinds are summarized by the jewish slogan – “fuck your free speech.”
They can make facial abuse scenes where they abuse our women and that is a sacred part of their right to free speech, but if we come to conclusions using science rather than Jewish concensus, we are told that we do not have the right to free speech.
I honestly don’t like these people.
Open Borders Are Anti-Libertarian – LewRockwellwww.lewrockwell.com › 2016/04 › bionic-mosquito
Apr 9, 2016 – Many in the libertarian “open borders” crowd ignore this form of government intervention. Rothbard, on rethinking his views on immigration in …
Thank-you. I may be wrong about Murray Rothbard. I don’t recall reading anything by him. This article influenced me against him. The author, Tobias Langdon, is a persuasive writer.
I oppose libertarianism. I find it to be unrealistic. In general, all forms of social liberalism are dishonest and unhealthy, even suicidal.
But if Murray Rothbard opposed open borders, even as an end-of-life conversion, then good for him. If he were alive today, I wonder what he would think about immigration and other things.
You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was “only a compromise”: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. Ayn Rand, 1957
Article by (((Peter Schwartz))): Libertarianism: A Perversion of Liberty
[This is a critique from a mulatto]
[Schwartz was from the Ayn Rand Institute]
Charlie Hebdo was a Deep State psy-op with Muslims as patsies. There, I said it.
There – I agree with you !
01 What the hell was that photographer doing on the roof directly above the scene, photographing the activity on the street ? No foreknowledge – my ass ! With said documentation used against the Muslims.
02 Just like the ” dancing Israelis “: Movers [and shakers] in NJ, who later admitted on Israeli TV Channel 4, that they were ” sent there to record the event “.
03 Just like the French film-crew who happened to be in Manhattan, ostensibly to record the life and work of New York’s Fire Department.
04 Just like the Frankfurter correspondent Gutjahr who happened to have rented a first floor hotel room in Nice, whose balcony faced the street: all the better to film the 20 ton truck which ” unexpectedly ” crashed into a crowd of French revelers during July 14,  Bastille Day celebrations. Leaving a carnage of dismembered victims.
05 Just like lucky Gutjahr who just happened to come by the Munich Mall, where a mental patient shot several customers. [ Only months earlier, Israel had established a Consulate in Munich, and the shooter was under psychiatric care of a ” local ” shrink, located minutes away. ]
06 Just like ever-professionally-lucky Gutjahr, whose mother-in-law’s apartment was suitably positioned to photograph the horrified crowd, scampering from the mall.
07 Just like Gutjahr, whose wife, just then retired from Israeli Intelligence, was dutifully keeping house for him and their Duke U attendee daughter, in Frankfurt.
All crimes have to be called out. Perhaps those by uninvited guests more so than others.
But to fabricate crimes is the biggest among all – best left to our enemies co-operating with our purportedly own governments and their ” grooms of the stool “.
Indeed it was.
Of course, the Jews, who embody fairness above all,* tossed their Muslim allies a bone by seeing to it that no one dared blame the torching of Notre Dame de Paris on the crime’s actual perpetrators, who were clearly heard to repeatedly shout “Allahu Akbar” as the roof of the sacred Christian shrine, the spiritual fulcrum of once-Catholic France, burned and collapsed.
01 I never saw more than one human figure jumping around in the flaming roof structure, as evidenced by one or more videos.
02 There was a great distance from the street to the top of the fire, with the fire making quite a racket by itself – pulling in essential oxygen. As in Dresden.
03 Who were these people who testified to hearing, all that way, and against the ambient noise, God Is Great ?
One may theorize as to the actual identity of the arsonist[s].
On the other hand it is certainly not only the usual ” twofer ” for the Jews, ie against Christ and Mohamad, but a ” threefer ” when you add their additional, induced, subsequent, consequent and DEMONSTRABLE charges of Islamophobia of the in any case despicable traditional European.
Alas, Charles, a search of my files has failed to turn up the corroborating video that, before this moment, I was quite sure I had retained. Mea culpa.
The video was either a professional or semi-pro job of the fire as it approached its worst. Unlike all other videos I saw at the time or have seen since, however, this one did not suppress the audio track. On it, along with cries of dismay and general chatter, one distinctly heard loud, repeated cries of Allah-praising delight from what seemed like a sizable group of Muslims.
I am not claiming, of course, that the cheering Muslims in question were the arsonists, but I do say that their presence at the scene en masse is at least as indicative of active malice as that of the famous dancing Israelis of Jersey City on September 11, 2001—and as little likely to be a coincidence.
If I manage to find the video, I shall post it here.
“…with Muslims as patsies.”
And Whites as the target.
Divide and Conquer.
But I’m sure the Muslims knew about it. After all, they’re semetic cousins. Jewish Supremacy Inc. has formed the same alliance with them in Europe that they have in The USA with blacks in the 20th century and Latinos in the 21st.
Either way, you’re probably right about the whole psy-op thing. This young century has already been chock-o-block full of them.
Jews are Hamitic Canaanites, not Semitic Israelites.
“Strictly speaking it is incorrect to call an ancient Israelite a ‘Jew’ or to call a contemporary Jew an ‘Israelite’ or a ‘Hebrew’. The first Hebrews may not have been Jews at all…”
— 1980 Jewish Almanac, p. 3.
Were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jews?:
Origins of the Royal Judahites and Canaanite Jews explained:
Arabs are half Hamitic through the Egyptian Hagar (Sarah’s handmaid) and half Semitic through Abraham the Semite.
I don’t like labels because they are easily distorted, as I see in this piece, as I would consider myself an advocate for very limited government and therefore by default I suppose a libertarian. I didn’t realize that advocating for limited government meant you were for open borders and am trying to figure it all out but this writer seems to have it all figured out at least in a simplistic non scholarly way.
Why he didn’t just say Jews instead of Leftist’s and point to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”I don’t know.
It is my understanding that many if not most of the writers at Charlie Hebdo are or were Jewish which would show an incredible amount of hypocrisy, as in France you can go to prison for having opinions that can be construed to be antisemitic. you could also see a certain poetic justice in regards to Jews pushing for third world immigration to diminish the white race only to have it backfire.
There is a difference between having the right to do something and it being the right thing to do .Norman Finkelstein as per usual sums it up well in the below article.
Why is there so much focus on Islam here when it’s mainly the far left trying to silence people? This seems no different from the media blaming “white supremacists” for the actions of the far left.
For far left behavior, how about blaming the far left?
Islam is not a powerful force in Western countries. Muslims didn’t open up the floodgates to mass immigration and Muslims aren’t running powerful anti-free speech groups like antifa and the ADL.
Diverting attention from the main culprits helps them, not us.
Ah, freedom of speech. Do you know about Mr. Julius Streicher?
Nearly all books on Eurocide II refer to Julius Streicher in the most negative of terms. His crime: Writing about monopoly media’s “best of all people.” His cartoons and “wrong thinking” resulted in his being hung at the Nuremberg trials. A friend of mine, Ernest Zundel, sparred with the NSM’s “best of all people” for decades. Eventually the FBI, Canadian authorities and German lackeys formed a get EZ network. He was bagged on the most dubious of charges; he was incarcerated because of immigration infractions. All around him were illegal immigrants. Thus, he was put in the hoosegow in the USA and denied medications. Then, he was incarcerated in Canada. Later, he was shipped to Europe and jailed in Germany. Soon, after the rigors of incarceration, after being released, he expired. EZ is just one example of many that I have seen in my life’s journey. I have witnessed the innocent being incarcerated in the Workers Paradise and in so-called Western Civilization.
Free-speech is a complete farce. EZ was able to initially espouse his feelings. Once large numbers started to listen to him he was shut down. Some refer to those who silence such individuals as the nemesis of mankind. It’s an interesting hypothesis.
This was another great outside the box TOO article for which we should all be grateful. Whenever you hear the words “free speech” think of cartoons and Julius Streicher.
Our free speech tradition was destroyed by the Jews, not by anyone else. The Jews fill the media with both propaganda and useless nonsense whose purpose is to fill up the space and leave no room for normal White people. Jewish control of the media has been responsible for the leftist drift of our institutions and our culture. And now, they want to shut down the discussion on the internet.
It’s not just the media: teachers, politicians and administration officials also stick to what they are allowed to say under the Jewish system. All of them now talk like communication managers with no opinion of their own. It’s as if our European soul had vanished.
The Jews also try to distort our natural ideal of freedom of speech. They used to push the destructive “libertarian” idea that you don’t have “free speech” unless you’re allowed to defile everything sacred. They think it’s important to have the right to publish cartoons of Muhammad’s anus in Charlie Hebdo. At the same time, they want to cancel the 1st amendment in the USA, and jail anyone who criticizes the Jews, the race replacement program, the Jewish holocaust narrative, homosexuality…
By contrast, Muslim migrants don’t care what we say so long as we avoid religious provocations. They don’t try to destroy our culture. If you are prosecuted in France for complaining about the Muslim invasion, I think it’s more likely to be by Jews than by Muslims. Halal slaughtering has also been pushed by the Jews, not by the Muslims themselves.
Just this week, Macron, who keeps importing record numbers of Muslims in France, made a speech against “Islamic separatism”. He’s noticed that some Muslim men refuse to shake women’s hands. Something had to be done about that! He said he would pass a new law to ban home-schooling (for everybody, Muslim or not), create an Institute of islamology, and have Arabic taught in schools by French teachers instead of Algerian teachers paid by Algeria. I guess his plan to ban home-schooling was suggested to him by Jewish advisers who want to prevent White separatism. It’s not really a free speech issue, except for the lack of opposition from political parties and the media, since both are under Jewish control.
The Jews have also been the main culprits silencing voices of reason during the virus epidemic. My conclusion is that Muslim indifference to the European ideal of free speech is irrelevant. The migrant invasion is a disaster because they are replacing us. Their proclivity for crime is an aggravating factor. But the assault against our freedom of expression is almost entirely Jewish.
” the young woman holding up a sign saying “FUCK YOUR FREE SPEECH” seems to be an East Asian, quite possibly with a high IQ and from a long line of civilized, law-abiding ancestors.”
I worked in Asia, specifically Japan, for close to a decade, and left unimpressed. The IQ tests given in Japan are not comparable to those in the West and furthermore, for reasons of saving face and other issues, the mentally handicapped tend to be under-tested. This will automatically put the center of their bell curve a few points higher than 100. It’s lying by omission.
What they are, in general, are slavish rule-following conformists. The Prussian education system got transferred lock, stock, and barrel to Japan, even down to the boys’ school uniforms. It emphasizes test-taking and rote memorization, not any creative thinking per se. Asia is not a meritocracy and a lot depends on your place in the hierarchy and who you know, more so than here. As a rule, they do well in test taking and memorization, they are trained for it from a young age.
We’ve seen a lot of stupidity coming out of China in the past couple decades – I think that should be proof enough. Or as my mom once said to me when I was in grade school – “You know why China has Communism? There’s a billion morons over there!”
Near the end of Murray Rothbard’s life (he died in 1995) he began to speak out against open borders.
Rothbard also endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in ’92, despised feminists and Martin Luther King, wrote sympathetically of David Duke and Joe McCarthy and his final article was a book review praising the Bell Curve.
F— your free speech from Israel:
Nadav Shaval,is an Israeli tech entrepreneur, founder SPOT IM, which has now morphed into OPEN WEB. His company is paid by major Western corporations to monitor and moderate their comments section, and/or completely banning certain commentators who do not tow the party line. I started noticing something strange when trying to comment on a variety of websites that was monitored and moderated by them. If you mention Israel you will see a notification that “your comment is awaiting moderation”. Naturally, your comment does not see the light of day no matter who polite you are with the facts.
The alarming aspect of this is the absolute control this man and his moderators have of over 700 major corporations who have engaged his company to censor mainly conservative views.
You can check the reviews at TRUST PILOT. COM about SPOT IM.(now OPENWEB.COM) to see what they are about. The following is just a very small example of the 700 corporations who have engaged Nadal Shoval’s company:
Fox News, Salon, AOL, Huff Post, Russian Today, Hearst, Meredith Media (This company owns dozens of magazines, television stations, websites, and radio stations), refinery29.
J. S. Mill wrote that “Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist””’.
Murray Rothbard on the value of studying race/IQ issue, wrote
In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.
Rothbard even came out in favor of racial separation.
“We are now probably a lot more than two nations, and we had better start giving serious thought to national separation. To those who think that the main problem is restricting the number and types of immigration, the best answer is that such a policy is decades too late. We are already far more than one nation within the borders of the U.S.A., let alone worry about the immigrants. To greet the very raising of such questions with the mindless cry of “racism’ or “chauvinism’ misses the entire point.
We might not be able any longer to bring back the Old Republic across the entire land area of the 50 states. But we may be able to bring it back in a substantial part of that land area”.
No free speech for commies and antiwhites.
Free speech for us.
It is because of free speech that we are in this mess. I’ve no time for fancy principles.
What commies and antiwhites (they are both the same) do, is not free speech, but the actual hatespeech. The xenosh and their antiwhite minions are inverting everything. The say we are haters. They call the orchestrated tsunami of most antiwhite free-money-seeking migrants to our countries that will replace us in the long run and which is really white genocide: solidarity. Mandatory solidarity… Newspeak of the church of anti-whiteism.
I would only add, dear B., that absolute free speech is less a fancy principle than a false principle that has been contemplated for so bloody long only in its heavily rouged and mascara’d state that no one who sees it any longer recognizes it for what it is: first cousin to the proverbial pig with lipstick.
In his inadequate but still worthy attempt to draft a constitutional blueprint for a white society, Giles Corey was merely the latest to demonstrate what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle took for granted: a society worthy of the name requires a limited but hard core of unquestionable values and presumptions. A society that lacks them is impossible of realization.
Such an impossible, nonfunctioning society was termed “open” by (((Karl Popper))), whose once famous book “The Open Society and Its Enemies” highlighted Socrates and Plato as the ultimate enemies of what he called social democracy. Thanks to his (typically Jewish) deceitful advocacy of yet another inversion of values, I have been thanking Popper for almost sixty years for helping me to see that democracy is nothing but modernity’s version of the Golden Calf.
@Anthropos & Pierre. Thanks for your responses, boychiks. Years & years ago, some friends convinced me to be a libertarian. Boy, how things change…One of those “friends” loaned me a book by David Friedman, with one chapter opening thus: “America, the closed preserve, that dirty foreigners don’t deserve.” How terribly noble of him.
Endless hypocrisies abound, myriad inconsistancies with our Dhimmi leaders in the West, no more acute than in the leftist qiasi-Marxist press.
It’s not much over forty years since Pakistan enshrined in its political constitution islamic law and the one and only ‘word’ Pakistanis faithfully adhere to.
There was a very good documentary on BBC4 ‘Storyville’ titled “The Damned or Devoted, broadcast this spring but failed to show vital historical points relevant to present malaise. Nevertheless, it did mention that Asia Bibi was refused asylum in the UK (because former PM Theresa May was fearful that her presence here in the UK would ‘inflame muslim tensions’-not mentioned); the programme also showed the rabid fervour of the followers of the religion of peace – enough for leftys to move house and area should enough of them occupy the house/street/town nearby to them.
In my part of East London I have a keen eye for stickers on public posts and one I spotted on Saturday had the phrase “The only good fascist is a dead one”, upon which a dark silhouetted figure falls on a swastika; another sticker that appears regularly is rather small and like the previous one, quite professionally produced, illustrated in the centre is a bearded Arabic head, above it a slogan states “Refugees Welcome” and at the bottom a sword. My response to both is: Fornication Under Consent of King.
Dear Mister Langdon & Others,
1. Thank you for your article and COMMENTS. For now I shall just say that when one is of Traditional values, Religious, Political, Economic & Financial and Nationalistic-Racial, and is constantly under scrutiny by the powers that be, with not a few never being able to be reemployed to fulfill their respective gifts and profession, living in a controlled culture, more believe it or not in Anglo-Saxon countries, libeticidal England which is on the way to being like Germany. many but many take a LIbertarian position with regard to Free Speech, and wherever they might find themselves, represent the ethics of the First Amendment of The United States Constitution which in turn is the First Article of The Bill Of Rights. And we know what a load of dung heap this can be when the powers that be in America decide to silence one. The mother country of this law England and its land, has never had Freedom Of Speech, and that is a fact. Germany we can understand yet not accept what happens there, as in Austria. The Austrians and even more so the Germans were psychologically inculcated into a nightmarish state of guilt and were treated, including millions of children, as if they the lowest form of existence. Interestingly enough, despite laws similar to Germany’s the Latin European countries still offer more freedom of expression. This is because as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon world ideas have always meant something in these lands. A great deal for this also has to do with the Anglo-Saxon sphere being heavily of a psycho-emotional Presbyterian foundation which permeates everyone which signifies even those of other religions and whatever political stripe. Just look at how in America a politician’s career, or any famous person in business, can be ruined because of an extra martial affair. But not in France or Italy. Obviously, one doesn’t agree with adultery, but life is what it is. There is a more profound comprehension of life and its complexities in the mind of the Roman Apostolic Catholic, the authentic Church I speak of, id est pre-Second Vatican Council. Allow me to PASTE, first herein a REPLY by me and that in turn from a comrade & friend, German in America, and then I follow with the object at hand: a film of an Italian organisation, and I think you will understand what I’m attempting to make you all comprehend:
This is one of the paradoxes of Italian Law, that Italians can get away with expressing what is punishable elsewhere in Europe, Germany, and even in Canada to some extent.
Is this not a sign of hope, despite how bad things are, and bad is an understatement. Thank you very much.
Dear Aristo, It is, indeed, a sign of hope. That is why I forwarded it. I have gotten some of the replies from persons you sent it on to which have been entertaining as well. Why the pick up of “communist” programs is a surprise is always something that I don’t understand. People must not recognize that the left and the right are the same, except for the stance on globalism. This would be virtually impossible in Germany. One may not display the swastika,, fasces, arrow cross, death’s head or any “fascist” symbols. They may be interpreted by a court as such in a whim. No public display of Hitler, Mussolini,, Antonescu, Horthy or similar historic persons in a positive or neutral fashion. No singing of patriotic songs from as far back as 1870. To deny the final solution is punishable by imprisonment. Other than the present reality that the world’s economy has suffered irreparable damage. England known for at least two centuries as “a nation of shopkeepers” will suffer alterations as will any less industrial nation. So much of our era has passed by not to return. My imprisonment has been hard on my physical health and my psychological guilt. My faith has been adjusted, perhaps rejuvenated, perhaps not.
The Video film David forwarded to me:https://youtu.be/I3x-ge4w46E
2. Now I have a friend, Michèle Lady Renouf, who just for speaking with compassion for the Germans of Dresden at a commemoration of that maniacal act led by British Bomber Harris carried out by both Americans and British, The Fire Bombing Of Dresden, faces a prison sentance. Freedom of Speech? I wish Mister Kurt Vonnegut Junior was alive. It was a criminal act to put it simply. By analogy, the proof is what American Air Force General Curtis Emerson LeMay told his adjunct Robert Strange McNamara with regard to The Tokyo and other 66 Japanese cities fired bombed,” If we were on the losing side we would be brought up on War Crimes”. In God’s Name patriotically? No, In Satan’s!!! What follows below are LINKS so you all may follow day by day what is happening to Lady Renouf, and please give her your support and pray:
Dear Mr Boho,
Michèle’s trial will be at Dresden Amtsgericht next Friday (16th October) at 9 a.m.
I’ve set up a blog and associated social media accounts to publish updates at
I hope you are keeping well in these crazy times.
You see Mister Langdon, and others I could never embrace total Libertarianism because it’s Individualism complements the Collectivism of the Communist: Godless Inhumane & Materialistic. Notwithstanding, if you truly analyze the situation to-day, this nightmare of nightmares we are in, Absolute Freedom of Speech must be allowed, or the Powers and Principalities that rule us will continue to annihilate us and everything of value and quite a lot of damage has been accomplished. God Bless, Aristo Boho