NOTICE

If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. Please add a link to the original post on my blog.

Monday, 26 January 2015

Have We Carefully Thought of the Consequences of Absolute Free Speech?

The great defender of Western civilisation Charles Martel who defeated the Muslims would not have allowed Christianity to be mocked or denigrated. Notice the cross, which has to be defended.


This article was published on The Occidental Observer

By Enza Ferreri


One “thought experiment” in the recent – but not yet concluded - debate on freedom of speech surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre particularly impressed me:
Here is a thought experiment: Suppose that while the demonstrators stood solemnly at Place de la Republique the other night,… a man stepped out in front… carrying a placard with a cartoon depicting the editor of the magazine lying in a pool of blood, saying, “Well I’ll be a son of a gun!” or “You’ve really blown me away!” or some such witticism. How would the crowd have reacted? Would they have laughed?... He would have been lucky to get away with his life.

Masses of people have turned the victims of a horrific assassination… into heroes of France and free speech. The point of the thought experiment is not to show that such people are hypocrites. Rather, it is to suggest that they don’t know their own minds. They see themselves as committed to the proposition that there are no limits to freedom of expression... But they too have their limits. They just don’t know it.
Perhaps because he’s a philosopher and by profession he's obliged to analyse the logical consistency and theoretical validity of statements, Brian Klug here encapsulates the problem with the default mainstream "Je Suis Charlie" position.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.

Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don't realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance.

Similarly, philosophers like Karl Popper maintain that in any debate you cannot question everything. The debaters must share some common assumptions, including the use of the same language and basic definitions of at least some of the main concepts relevant to the discussion.

This corresponds to relativity in the physical world. To establish if and at what speed a train is moving, you need something still to compare it with.

Questioning everything results in chaos, which ultimately means questioning nothing.

This is one of the fallacies often propounded by the so-called "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins: question everything.

The prevailing ideology of relativism, wedded to the policy of multiculturalism, does something similar to questioning everything, by denying the idea that some doctrines are better than others and rejecting a shared set of belief as a sine qua non for a society.

By believing in everything we believe in nothing. Hence the current confusion about freedom of speech and in particular the failure to recognise exactly when this good is paid for too dearly at the expense of society.

Therefore the discussion shouldn’t be around yes or no to free speech but about what should limit free speech and why.

The best way to do that is to establish the principles and goals to guide our decision about what expressions shouldn’t be permitted by law as their effects are so deleterious that they outweigh the benefits of free speech.

The most cited examples of such expressions are falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded place and incitements to commit crime.

But, beyond obvious cases like these, we can immediately see that we cannot reach a consensus, since people in our fractured society have widely-different goals and principles.

Much of this diversity in the West is produced by the influx of large masses of people from countries with worldviews, religious doctrines, ways of life profoundly diverging from ours.

The Hebdo attack tragically revealed one such irreducible conflict of ideas that makes it impossible for Westerners and devout Muslims to agree on when free expression should be limited.

Not even Charlie Hebdo (henceforth CH), the much-trumpeted supreme paragon and defender to the death of free speech, believed in absolute freedom of speech, as demonstrated by its sacking of the cartoonist Siné for a column considered anti-Jewish but, compared to the rag's ordinary fare, too mild for words. Later Siné won a 40,000-euro court judgment against CH for wrongful termination.

CH wasn’t the paper of free speech, but of double standards.

Recently the rag’s long-standing lawyer Richard Malka made evident his opinion that people can be too free in their speech when he chastised Nouvel Obs magazine for publishing a criticism of CH’s slain editor “Charb” by its co-founder Henri Roussel.

I don’t consider Charb et al martyrs. You can be a martyr to a cause, but when your cause is nothing (that’s what nihilism, in the end, is), you can’t be one.

Neither is their paper “satirical”: satire must express something more than the mere immature desire to attack and destroy.

According to encyclopaedias and dictionaries, satire has the intention to shame into improvement; its purpose is constructive social criticism, ridiculing stupidity or vices, showing the weaknesses or bad qualities of a person, government, society, etc.

There is no attempt at improving anything in CH’s crude depiction of sodomy among the three Persons of the Holy Trinity, no constructive social criticism in its celebration of Christmas with a cartoon of Baby Jesus thrown in a public squat toilet between a loo-paper roll (Mary) and a toilet brush (Joseph). No stupidity or vices are exposed – as opposed to demonstrated - by the drawing of the Virgin Mary making the vulgar “umbrella gesture” to fleeing Iraqi Christians while shouting the same words uttered during the massacre in which its drawer, Riss, was wounded, in an eerie coincidence: "Allahu Akbar". No weaknesses or bad qualities are shown by the sketch of a dishevelled, desperate Madonna who, dripping liquid, says she was raped by the three Wise Men.

“Are we all supposed to march in solidarity with that?” asks Patrick Buchanan.

CH’s crass, adolescent humour revolving around sex (preferably of the homosexual variety) and excrements is unfunny and sad. It reminds me of a song by 1960s-70s Italian singer-songwriter Fabrizio De Andre’, about Charles Martel returning from the Battle of Poitiers after having defeated the Moors. The supposed humour concerns his long abstinence from sex imposed by the war, ending in his encounter with a prostitute.

De Andre’, like CH, was a product of the ’68 culture with its visceral hatred for anything Christian. Neither is satire: no intelligent message is put across, it’s turpitude and vile defamation just for the sake of it. In a word: destructive. Which is what the counterculture is all about.

Here we get to answer the question regarding the core principles and goals that must be protected from attacks, the line that freedom of speech must not cross. Charles Martel is a symbol of a Europe united by the same belief in Christianity and prepared to defend that belief on which its civilisation was founded and without which, as it is under everyone’s eyes now, is sinking.

Christianity must be protected from its enemies, then as now. It’s not a question of preferential taste or personal desire: it’s the collective cohesion that is at stake, without which there is no Western society. Critically, given the decline of Christianity as a unifying force among Europeans, statements about the legitimacy of the interests of White Europeans in retaining their territories and their culture must be protected rather than marginalised or made illegal as “hate speech.”

It’s, at this point, a question of survival. Freedom of speech is not a suicide pact, as Alexander Boot put it.

That our heroes and the symbol of our fight for freedom must be the demented pornographers of CH shows what sorry state our civilisation has reached.

That revolting excuse of a rag has been a procession of covers offending Christianity, at a moment when like never before we need something to believe in and to rally around.

It's because of people like CH and De Andre’ and their successful propagation of desecrations of what had kept us together and strong for centuries, that we have been left with absolutely nothing to fight Islam with.

By disarming us, the CH journalists victims of the recent attacks have indeed invited their own death - in a deeper sense than is commonly thought.


13 comments:

  1. I have a problem with saying that whites need to return to our Christian roots in order for us to fend off our invaders as Charles Martel did.

    Returning to our Christian roots does fight against social Marxism in that it allows us to maintain our unique identity. HOWEVER...

    Christians are very much responsible for the horrible amounts of immigration into the white homeland of Europe and America. I don't like to use anecdotal stories however the Christians I know are 'love thy fellow man', 'were all the same' types who don't consider immigration a problem.

    You simply cannot say that Christianity will save us when its dogma is a MAIN cause behind our suicidal stance on immigration.

    Christians believe that as long as a person is a christian they're a friend. This is insane. In America our prisons are populated with many violent blacks and Hispanics who are Christians. However, race trumps religion. Their violence is in their DNA and no religion is going to change that.

    Christianity must be interpreted differently if it is to benefit whites. It must include dogma such as 'We're all the same in God's eyes, however God wants the races to live independent from one another." Without these changes it stands as a hurtle to our cause. It cannot be our uniting force when its dogma is simultaneously used to justify suicide by immigration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Firstly, that you say Christianity should benefit Whites only is ludicrous. Jesus died for all man kind, and Christianity was and is meant for all man kind. Jesus waits for all humans, regardless of color, to come to him.

      You said that Christians believe as long as a person is a Christian they're a friend. That is false. You do not seem to understand the term truly practicing Christian, and cafeteria Christian, or Christian in name only. We know such people by the fruits they bear. God expects us to judge good from evil, or to judge a person by the fruits they bear. Discernment is a gift God gives us if we sincerely pray and ask him to help us.

      Let's get things straight, if criminals in prison were truly practicing Christians regardless of race or color, they would not live a life of crime or be in prison. You conveniently forgot to mention the Neo Nazi White supremacists which also occupy prisons, but I guess for you their criminal behavior is justified because they are white? I would suspect that violence is in the DNA of these Neo Nazis, or Russian gangs as well, and this DNA is a form of bad genetic mutation? Criminality knows no boundaries of race or color, but your racism shows, because you focus only on blacks and Hispanics.. During the great immigration of Europeans to the US, the New York slums, and other big inner cities were filled with Irish, Russian, Italian, and Neo Nazi Mafias, not just black criminals or Hispanic.

      Also, what you speak of...God wanting the races to live independent from one another is called segregation. I believe you would like to see God's word suited to condone the segregation you want. Furthermore, by your standards all Hispanics and blacks are all bad, so you want to segregate people the caliber of Condoleeza Rice, Herman Cain, Allen West, Doctor Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio from what you deem the superior race 'Whites.' You seem a Christian in name only, but not truly a Christian based on your racist comments. Purported Christians like you do not realize, that when we all stand before God, he will judge us by the content of our character, and not the color of our skin. Hispanic gangs, Neo Nazis, Russian gangs, Asian gangs, Italian or other White supremacist anti Semitic gangs will all be judge by God, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character

      I would not be changing the bible to suit your own prejudices for the judgment and penalty from God will be harsh.

      Verses 18 and 19 of chapter 22 of Revelations:
      "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."

      Delete
    2. #1. I am not a Christian. You are a Christian and your response validates the premise of my post. You think there are no consequences when blacks, arabs, and hispanics move into first world countries because you're blinded by dogma.

      #2 Blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs destroy first world countries. This is because of genetics.

      #3 "...if criminals in prison were truly practicing Christians regardless of race or color, they would not live a life of crime or be in prison."
      This is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

      #4 Whites commit worlds less crime and have higher IQs than blacks and Hispanics on average. Asians have higher IQs than whites on average. Do not let dogma blind you to the truth. Whites are in a dangerous position. You sound like you are a good person. There are many interpretations of the Bible. Wake up before the anti-whites genocide whites.

      Delete
    3. Surely these silly qoutes about the "blacks " because of some paper some white guy wrote has to stop.
      I am half white and half black. Where do I stand in you new world where blacks are violent and whites will save the world

      Delete
    4. This is absolutely correct. Only white people practice a "raceless" Christianity. Black Christians are blacks first, Christians second. Same with all the other races except for whites who have been brainwashed to play by a set of rules designed to genocide them from their own homelands. Whites are the minority on this planet and face a very clear risk of genocide unless we regain our racial cohesion and start acting in our racial interests JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER RACE ON THIS PLANET IS DOING. This is a game of racial Survivor and white people are the ones the anti-whites have decided to vote off the planet.

      Delete
    5. Did Charles Martel save Europe BECAUSE he was a Christian or IN SPITE of being a Christian?

      Ancient European Greeks repelled the arabs. They were not Christians. They had a Pantheon of Gods. I doubt they had a God in their Pantheon that believed suicide by immigration was a virtue.

      Another point about Christianity. Ill use your quotes.

      -----"Jesus died for all man kind, and Christianity was and is meant for all man kind. Jesus waits for all humans, regardless of color, to come to him."------

      Christianity doesn't come with a white identity according this quote. Let me show you with quotes:

      ARABIA FOR ARABS
      ASIA FOR ASIANS
      WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYONE?

      Change to this:

      ISLAM FOR ARABS
      BUDDHISM FOR ASIANS
      CHRISTIANITY FOR EVERYONE?

      This is another example of the problem that Christianity has unifying whites.

      Here's how we use Christianity to justify stopping immigration and multiculturalism.

      Suicide is not allowed in the Christian religion. This extends to suicide by immigration. Or cultural suicide by multiculturalism. Problem solved.



      Delete
    6. Still . didn't answer where me a half caucasian and half black person fits in your world?

      Delete
  2. WHY

    MORE PEOPLE IN BRITAIN CONVERT TO ISLAM !
    Many who convert face immense challenges with loss of family and friends, adapting to new environments, having to abandon family traditions that are against Islam and the loneliness that this can bring and many other factors that many Muslims born into the faith don’t necessarily need to deal with. With almost 2.7 million Muslims living in Britain, the number of converts increasing means more Islamic representation within the country.
    The number of Britons choosing to become Muslims has nearly doubled in the past decade, with one of the most comprehensive attempts to estimate how many people have embraced Islam, according to news source the Independent. While previous estimates placed the number of Muslim converts between 14,000 and 25,000 an inter-faith think tank estimates the real figures could be as high as 100,000 with nearly 5,000 converts each year nationally.
    A poll by Faith Matters, surveyed converts living in Britain and broke down what proportion of Muslim converts there were living in London. The researchers polled mosques with results showing. The number of Britons choosing Islam doubled in the past decade 1,400 conversions in the capital and when extrapolated this meant approximately 5,200 people converting to Islam each year – figures that were comparable with French and German survey research results. The report also noted how converts were portrayed by the media and noted that more than 62% of news articles made mention of converts and in particular made references to terrorism and extremism.
    Many who convert face immense challenges with loss of family and friends, adapting to new environments, having to abandon family traditions that are against Islam and the loneliness that this can bring and many other factors that many Muslims born into the faith don’t necessarily need to deal with. With almost 2.7 million Muslims living in Britain, the number of converts increasing means more Islamic representation within the country.
    IA
    http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

    ReplyDelete
  3. ISLAM, THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING RELIGION.

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4f7_1406495695&comments=1

    ReplyDelete
  4. Asia for the Asians. Africa for the Africans. White countries for Everyone? Only white countries are "melting pots". That's White Genocide. Diversity is a code word for #WhiteGenocide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The 7th century is not meeting the 21st century head on. Early Muslim societies tolerated Christians and Jews (though they had to pay extra taxes). Moorish Spain had a sizeable Jewish population who were later expelled upon the "Christian" reconquest, taking their ladino language to a variety of Mediterranean lands, some Muslim, where they survived until the Nazis destroyed them. Christian communities survived in the middle east up until now, when they are suffering from the backlash to western intervention and as collateral victims of sectarian struggles within Islam.

      The debate in Britain is becoming more and more polarised on the issue of immigration. Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats are all vying with one another to appear more and more anti-immigrant. Yet it is clear that immigrants are vital to the life of this country, and have been instrumental in creating much of what we now value most. Much of what the big parties are doing is to distract from the real threat to people’s standard of life and to our culture – the capture of our state by the interests of the wealthy and big corporations.

      Your car is German. Your vodka is Russian. Your pizza is Italian. Your kebab is Turkish. Your democracy is Greek. Your coffee is Brazilian. Your movies are American. Your tea is Tamil. Your shirt is Indian. Your oil is Saudi Arabian. Your electronics are Chinese. Your numbers are Arabic, your letters Latin. And you complain that your neighbour is an immigrant? Pull yourself together!

      Most of Brits do not want immigration on this scale. That is shown by every poll. But at the same time they want someone to serve them in a bar and clean their hospitals and make cheap clothes. They want someone to drive them across town. Birth rate is declining and old population is on the rise. Migration is on the rise. Mass immigration has caused problems, but it is the fault of the politicians. In education, migrant communities should have their own state funded schools with their own teachers so that native teachers could concentrate on their own children. It is never too late to set up schools for different communities. Muslim community suffer more than others in the field of education.

      Europe is dying its natural death. It needs more and more immigrants to keep their societies alive. Without migration, European societies and economies would bleed to death.

      The UK is booming in part helped by immigration. However there are plenty of poorly paid jobs around so government isn't raising much tax from them. As a result during this boom the deficit is increasing.
      IA
      http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

      Delete
  5. Your insanity is on display.

    To all my family in Europe, to the Irish, Germans, Spanish, English, Austrians, Italians, Fins, Swedes, and to the Russians and Americans and white people across the world, support Geert Wilders and PEGIDA, deport the vampiric and destructive third worlders, blacks, arabs, hispanics. Do not let these parasites maneuver you by using your inborn altruism. The squeaky wheel gets greased. However the perpetually squeaky wheel that never stops squeaking regardless of the amount of grease applied gets removed and replaced with a wheel that does not squeak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is easy to say" Go back to where you came from", but do not forget that British Muslims are actually born and educated here. They are in the unenviable position of trying to combine two different worlds. That is no easy. We do not want to change you lot but we would like to see our children getting balanced Islamic education along with National Curriculum. We would like our children to learn and be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time we would like our children to learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry. A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit. Bilingualism is an asset but British schooling regards it as a problem.

      We live in a shrunken world and millions of people are on the move; one of our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference – different skin colours, different beliefs and different way of life. According to a study by COMPASS, Muslims born and educated were given the impression of outsiders. The perception among Muslims is that they are unwelcome in Britain is undermining efforts to help them integrate into wider society. Most of them say that they have experienced race discrimination and religious prejudice. Muslims and Islam is promoted a fundamentalist and separatist by the western elite, which have negative impact on community and social cohesion. The number of racist incidents occurring in London Borough of Redbridge’s schools have reached their highest levels since record begin.

      A City or a locality, where Muslims are in majority is a ghetto. There is a tendency for people of similar backgrounds to live together in neighbourhoods. The term”ghettoisation” is inappropriate. The original ghettos in Europe during the middle ages were set up by law to confine the Jewish population to one area of a city. According to a research by an Australian academic that Muslim communities in Britain are being increasingly ghettoized in a trend that set back hopes of assimilation by years. Britain has now eight cities in the top 100 most ghettoized cities. The people from the Pakistani community in Bradford and Oldham and Leicester had trebled during the decade. A report by an academic Dr Alan Carling, that Bradford risks becoming a front line in the global clash between the West and Islam. But Islam and Muslims do not clash with the concepts of pluralism, secularism and globalisation. The native flight from Bradford’s inner-city wards showed clear evidence of an increase in segregation in the city since 1991. Native parents are avoiding sending their children in state schools where Muslims and other minorities are in majority. The dominance of Pakistani Muslims in the city has meant that Bradford has become bi-cultural.

      Immigrants are the creators of Britain new wealth, otherwise, inner cities deprived areas could not get new lease of life. The native Brits regard such areas as ghettoes. Integration is not religious and cultural, it is economic and Muslims are well integrated into British society and at the same time they are proud of their Islamic, linguistic and cultural identities, inspite of discrimination they have been facing in all walks of life. According to UN, 80% of British Muslims feel discriminated. They are less burden on social services. Immigrants made up 8.7% of the population, but accounted for 10.2% of all collected income tax

      It is often quoted by the Western media that Muslim schools ghettoizes the children, and even lead to their radicalisation if they are not integrated. There is no evidence that faith schools lead to a “ghettoized education system. In British schools, pupils are encouraged to focus too much on their similarities rather than their differences.

      Delete