By M.K. Styllinski
Freedom of Speech
Right, as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger”—i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint. – Encyclopedia Britannica
uk /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ us /ˈhɪs.i ˌfɪt/ informal: a sudden period of uncontrolled and silly anger like a child. – Cambridge English Dictionary
No, the above sub-heading is not a reference to Hillary Clinton’s embarrassingly awful publishing deal in which she attempts to cast herself as saintly victim of (non-existent) Russian malfeasance. This is about what happened to the principles of the left and its liberal brother; why we are seeing such psychological chaos rising up through left-liberal activism and the younger, socially-minded generations.
Take a look a some of these headlines from the past few years:
Denmark Offers Homes, Education To Jihadists In “Hug A Terrorist” Rehab Program
30 years ago when I was a young, very bewildered 18 year-old, I was firmly of the belief that environmentalism and a liberal sprinkling of old school Marxism was just the ticket for a more humane and just society. Times have radically changed. Or maybe I just grew up. If my 18 year-old self could have had a brief window into his 48 year old future self that now sides with conservative values over left-liberal activism, he would have shook his head at the horror of it all.
Admittedly, I often think I’ve of stumbled into an alternate reality.
The truth is, I don’t naturally resonate to conservatism, moderate or otherwise. If you had to rubber stamp my forehead with an “-ism” then it would have to be agorism with a dash of old, peace-loving anarchism in the truest sense of the word. Nevertheless, I count myself as a liberal on certain issues, more libertarian or conservative on others. Call it a pick ‘n’ mix position of the best that our philosophical and political traditions can offer. Shouldn’t that be the whole point in a sane and rational world? Most political ideologies – much like most religions – have at their inception nuggets of gold which can potentially enrich societies. Obviously, that approach is not what we have in the world; only “My way or the highway” rules the day.
Equally, this is not about whether we are left or right-leaning in our worldview, nor is it about further entrenching the problem along partisan lines. This is concerned with upholding free speech for everyone so that reasoned discourse can be given the chance to prevail. Such a principle is unalterable for very precise reasons, as we will discover over the course of this series.
When I use the terms “moderate conservatism” and “left” or “left-liberal” I refer to the mindset rather than whatever political party is in power. The latter is irrelevant since the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK and the Democrat and Republican parties in the United States are still very much under the yoke of the (Deep) State’s social and economic dictates. It is this essential point that much of the left-liberal worldview is missing and gives nourishment to far right fringe groups by adopting an increasing and equally authoritarian line. This may sound very odd indeed if you consider yourself fighting the good liberal-left fight. But we will be explore how much of the left has been comprehensively ponerised i.e. infected by radical beliefs, in turn, turbo-charged by pathology and the implications for free speech.
I also want to make it absolutely clear that I am not throwing the baby out with the bath-water and suggesting that there is no racism or sexism etc., or that it should somehow be ignored. It does occur and it should be called out – if it is genuine. There has been great strides in addressing these issues; far greater progress has been made than one would think if listening to 3rd wave feminists, anti-racists and the like. Which is why the focus is about those who have a vested interest in perpetuating and inflaming these issues due to their own psychological predispositions about which they are unaware.
As the world becomes increasingly unstable (particularly in America) this mindset is growing and represents a dangerous threat to free speech and expression. It will mean whether we live in a democracy, however fragile that may be at present, or a form of soft totalitarianism that sometimes crudely or very subtly determines what you say or think. In other words: fascism. This is a shift which has developed through a form of neuro-hacking over decades, creating division and apparent tribalism, yet paradoxically encouraging conformity through a form of vertical collectivism. As I stated in World State Policies I:
So, what form has this “socialism” in the West actually taken? Simply put, collectivism is the opposite of individualism, where group thought, philosophy, action and principle overrides the needs of the individual. The term can be divided into horizontal collectivism and vertical collectivism. The former is collective decision-making among largely equal individuals, and is therefore based on decentralisation, while the latter is drawn from hierarchical power structures and socio-cultural conformity, and is based on centralisation. While such a drive to group endeavour can bring out the positive aspects of our interdependence and our shared experiences across the planet, the kind of collectivism we will explore is an overreaching form that employs both vertical and distorted horizontal forms into one vast entity – its expression having been ponerised by emerging strains of psychopathy. The onset of ponerogenesis will manifest by whatever channels deemed suitable in order to achieve Pathocracy. Remember that none of these ideologies are evil in themselves, but used in a pathocratic context, they become tools of destruction.
It is manifesting in complex, perhaps irreversible ways, through the very traditions that ostensibly speak up for the oppressed and disenfranchised. Such a collective social conscience is in danger of being replaced by a something quite different. It is being seeded in the younger generations who are least able to process its effects, therefore becoming it’s primary foot-soldiers. Since they are our future, this should be a concern to us all.; if that is, we can step outside our political allegiances and look squarely at the nature of the beast.