ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

Conservative free speech activists

We are supposed to be alarmed because the universities are not permitting students, particularly male ones, to speak out against the university-approved narrative:
A student at Indiana University of Pennsylvania has been barred from attending a religious studies class required for graduation after pointing out that there are only two genders.

“Later this week I will be defending myself and my FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS in front of the Academic Integrity Board (AIB) of the Indiana Univ. of Pennsylvania (IUP) against allegations of Classroom Conduct violations,” Lake Ingle stated in a Facebook post, which was deleted after Ingle retained legal representation.

"I am fighting to make my voice heard. Not only my voice, but the voices of others that oppose popular university opinion." 

“The decision made by the AIB that day will determine whether I will be able to continue participating in my full course load, as well as graduate this May as scheduled,” Ingle continued, adding, “This is not transgender, woman’s rights, or wage issue. This is about free speech and the constant misuse of intellectual power in universities.”
The thing is, the conservatives speaking out against this are the some of the same conservatives who also celebrate disemploying and jailing people for racism, anti-semitism, and Holocaust denial, and support both state and federal laws criminalizing speech in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement and denying federal contracts to corporations that boycott Israel. All of which result in penalties considerably more harsh than simply not being able to graduate from one particular university.

Why is the enforcement of the cuckservative narrative any more acceptable to these self-professed champions of free speech than the SJW narrative or the Fake Science narrative?

So, to be blunt, I don't give a damn about any these so-called "free speech" rights anymore. The First Amendment is observably dead and it's now clearly all just a power game of "who, whom" between rival identity groups, which means it is time for Anglo-American Christians to go back to having the temporal courts enforce blasphemy laws that criminalize all blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, and punish violators with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine.

That is not only more legitimate than these various anti-speech laws and public policies, it is actually part of the common law that has been degraded by non-Anglo immigrants who never understood it due to their historical lack of exposure to it.

Labels: , ,

71 Comments:

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 12:31 PM  

Well spoken. Much success the young student in his efforts to get justice. He should never had had to; but, here we are, in a war of many dimensions that, I'm sure those that promote such stupid restrictions hope never turns 'hot.'
I stand with him and you.

Blogger Ahärôwn March 10, 2018 12:37 PM  

Good point Vox - Western society has certainly created far ore problems than we might have resolved by allowing people to say whatever they pleased. And as you've mentioned before, such laws were merely used as a weapon against Christians by those seeking to undermine the West.

It's almost as if there is no such thing as free speech, and never was.

Blogger Ahärôwn March 10, 2018 12:39 PM  

*more

Blogger tuberman March 10, 2018 12:41 PM  

Well, this would quickly reverse the process, and turn all speech laws against the devils. A foreshadowing of things to come? Rhetorical question, as yep, it most certainly has to go this way.

This is why Christian thought will be critical to bring back Western Civilization.

Blogger Iskander Magnus March 10, 2018 12:45 PM  

Cosa fare?

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar March 10, 2018 12:46 PM  

Never buck the system openly.
Use sabotage.
I cautioned my daughter to also keep her opinions on the down-low when she starts college. Better to network underground and hit them anonymously.

Blogger Johnny March 10, 2018 12:46 PM  

It is a step ahead if they have to admit (or display) that they are repressing speech. Knowing that you are being lied to is the first stage of enlightenment. On that level this is worthy of support. But otherwise protests of this sort aren't going to go anywhere.

Blogger Lukas Brunnor March 10, 2018 1:02 PM  

Slay the heretic! Deus vult!

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 1:06 PM  

@7 Regardless they may seem to go nowhere, Johnny, the fight is the thing. You must fight back, otherwise the "they' will continue to see themselves winning. And, others with less courage, resources, or drive to the victory may be given the mental fortitude to stand for their rights should fate so visit them. We all must stand as we can for and with those that choose the good and righteous battle. Right now might be a good time for anyone to visit Ivan Throne's site and read with respect his life struggles. Buy his book or books by now, and see what extreme adversity can shape a real man into.

Blogger Dave March 10, 2018 1:09 PM  

@Jack Ward

Not so sure Vox ("The First Amendment is observably dead"), is with you on this one, Jack.

Now if advocating for more than two genders could be considered blasphemy against God and the Holy Scriptures; then you could go after the university under Vox's scenario of returning to enforcement of blasphemy laws.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother March 10, 2018 1:12 PM  

This is the thing I see happening with a Ron Paul presidency. In the fantasy, The magic incantations are uttered, the forces of the Deep State and communism melt away. Foreign policy rights itself, the IRS ceases to exist, etc. All by invoking the magic First Amendment, and the words "this is unconstitutional".

As the years go by, I've thought this more and more. How would either Paul be successful in this environment? The forces we fight against don't go away, just by saying the magic words.

We see that the President can't even stop a blatantly unconstitutional program such as DACA. A federal judge just orders it to continue because he feels like it.

Blogger Salt March 10, 2018 1:18 PM  

When he goes into the interrogation he should demand all of them to drop their drawers.

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 1:28 PM  

@10 Dave. I do not accept the First as dead. Regardless the opinion of anyone including the Dark Master. He and I do not always agree. That is the right of any man to have what seems a well founded opinion. Not agreeing with Vox, or anyone else, does not keep me from standing with them in the overall. No, I will not give up the First Amendment long as there is fight left in these old bones.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd March 10, 2018 1:34 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 1:34 PM  

I will not give up the First Amendment long as there is fight left in these old bones.

I respect that... as long as you fight both the Jews and the SJWs. If you only fight one and not the other, then you are not a free speech champion. You're just on one side and not the other.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd March 10, 2018 1:36 PM  

Why? The playing field has ALREADY changed is vox's point. They will put your grandchildren in prison for wrongthink and you will do nothing "cuz muh furst mendment!!"
The enemy is fielding,rifled muskets and you cling to your rusty,plate and chain like a lunatic...

Blogger Nakota Publishing March 10, 2018 1:47 PM  

Vox, I get your point but I submit I'm not the only rightwing atheist who supports the alt-right nationalist agenda but also denies Jesus, etc.

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 1:48 PM  

@15 Vox.
I fight whom ever is the enemy of God, my people, me.
And, of civilization, of course. Without a civilization based on the teachings of God and the Christ, we are truly lost. No, not on my watch. Whatever I can do will be done. Maybe not so much compared to some, but, battles are fought with arms, 4Th. war, and the mind. Of all these, I consider the Mind paramount. A mind driven by truth, the truth as taught by God, cannot, in the long run, ever be defeated.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales March 10, 2018 1:49 PM  

@16

To be fair, knights did develop plate armor that stopped early firearms cold.

@17

Ooooo! A unicorn! Haven't seen one of those in a while.

Blogger Slen March 10, 2018 1:57 PM  

"Contumelious"... Great word of the day Vox, thanks! Now all I've got to do is work that word into a conversation.

Blogger Jonathon Davies March 10, 2018 1:58 PM  

Two people in UK arrested for a speech they haven't yet given in case they say bad things about immigration.

Blogger JACIII March 10, 2018 2:04 PM  

The "discussion" method the instructor and generally the social justice curriculum employs is akin to the "struggle session" Mao used as a form of torture. Is it any wonder we are having trouble deprogramming youth?

Blogger The Observer March 10, 2018 2:10 PM  

Vox, I get your point but I submit I'm not the only rightwing atheist who supports the alt-right nationalist agenda but also denies Jesus, etc.

Then you will realise that religion is essential to asabiyyah, that Christendom is the West, and stop undermining the society you live in, whatever your private beliefs.

If you can't bring yourself to believe in "magical sky daddy", then at least mouth the words so that you can keep indoor plumbing and not being killed and eaten for witchcraft.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 10, 2018 2:26 PM  

Vox: "So, to be blunt, I don't give a damn about any these so-called "free speech" rights anymore. The First Amendment is observably dead and it's now clearly all just a power game of "who, whom" between rival identity groups, which means it is time for Anglo-American Christians to go back to having the temporal courts enforce blasphemy laws that criminalize all blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, and punish violators with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine."

You're certainly right to call out the "conservative" hypocrites who support these insane AIPAC laws that criminalize calling for a boycott of Israel. Those laws obviously are egregious violations of the First Amendment.

But if you really believe that free speech is over, and it's all down to tribalistic power dynamics now, then I have a few questions for you:

1) If the First Amendment is "observably dead," then why are you allowed to have a blog at all? Wouldn't the Establishment love to shut you down if it could? Why is the Alt Right allowed to speak online anywhere?

2) Who controls the Establishment? Is it people who think like you, or people who consider you an enemy? If you succeed in truly doing away with what's left of the First Amendment, why do you think that people like you would prevail in the unleashed power dynamic that would follow? It seems to me that an unleashed Establishment would be overwhelmingly against you, and that it would eagerly and easily shut you and the entire Alt Right down. Why do you disagree with that assessment?

3) How many people in positions of power anywhere share your views on blasphemy laws? You can't enforce these laws in the way that you want unless you have many people in the Establishment who agree with you.

Do you really believe that you have the necessary numbers within the Establishment to win the kind of battle that you want to fight?

Or is it rather that you want to impose free speech restrictions from below, through extra-legal means?

Blogger Red Bane March 10, 2018 2:40 PM  

Vox, the Irish, whom you seem to have a particular animus toward , know all about the value of free speech and what it feels like to have these and other rights taken away. After all, the Anglo conquerors of that fair isle passed numerous laws over the centuries of occupation forbidding the Irish all manner of rights, including speech. Ironic no? This notion that free speech is a peculiarly Anglo phenomenon is an historic absurdity.

Can I recommend Cobbet's ' A History of the Protestant Reformation, or indeed ' A History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century' , by Anglo professor William Lecky? :

" The operation of these laws alone might have been safely trusted to reduce the Catholic population to complete degradation; but there were many other provisions, intended to check any rising spirit of enterprise that might appear among them, and to prevent any ray of hope from animating their lot. In the acquisition of personal property, it is true, there is but little in the way of restriction to be added. By the laws I have described, the immense majority of the Irish people were excluded, in their own country, from almost every profession, and from every Government office, from the highest to the lowest, and they were placed under conditions that made the growth of industrial virtues and the formation of an enterprising and aspiring character wholly impossible."

William Edward Hartpole Lecky. History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century: Volume 1 (Kindle Locations 1649-1650). Wallachia Publishers. Kindle Edition.

America was never better or more prosperous than just after WW2, when the old ethnic neighborhoods were thriving and expanding, later to be deliberately turned into the sink-holes of today by the anlgo elite using block-busting as the means to that despicable end, resulting in the hoods of today.

OpenID Mike Jackson March 10, 2018 2:42 PM  

If you can't bring yourself to believe in "magical sky daddy", then at least mouth the words so that you can keep indoor plumbing and not being killed and eaten for witchcraft.

Yes, ^this.

Even Jefferson, who was not really a Christian by any stretch, attended church services regularly and promoted religiosity among the people by setting a good example. He knew that a culture needs unifying forces, and no one has yet found a force as strong as a common public religion.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 2:51 PM  

America was never better or more prosperous than just after WW2, when the old ethnic neighborhoods were thriving and expanding, later to be deliberately turned into the sink-holes of today by the anlgo elite using block-busting as the means to that despicable end, resulting in the hoods of today.

You're an utter moron if you think that immigration made the USA better in any way. I don't have any animus for the Irish; both Spacebunny and I are part-Irish. But I recognize that the Irish immigrants helped destroy America, second only to the Jewish immigrants.

History is not defined by your ancestry. Get over yourself. And I never said free speech was an Anglo-Saxon conception. The fact that blasphemy laws are part of the English common law demonstrates otherwise. If I recall my Bury correctly, it was more of a Enlightenment concept championed most strongly in France.

OpenID zhukovg March 10, 2018 2:56 PM  

If we Christians treated our faith as seriously as the Muslims do, things would be very very different.

Whether you believe or not, if you will not live in a society where Christianity is the conforming rule, then you are not a 'Man of the West', by any stretch.

Ad Victoriam! Deus Vult!

--ZhukovG

Blogger Dave March 10, 2018 2:57 PM  

But if you really believe that free speech is over, and it's all down to tribalistic power dynamics now, then I have a few questions for you:

Proceeds to pose 10 questions in one post...

Blogger Durandel March 10, 2018 2:58 PM  

Cernovich and Molyneux are reporting that Brittany Pettibone, Martin Sellner, and their camera woman are being held in jail by customs in the Uk for the crime of wanting to interview Tommy Robinson.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/03/martin-sellner-brittney-pettibone-detained-uk/

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 2:58 PM  

Vox, I get your point but I submit I'm not the only rightwing atheist who supports the alt-right nationalist agenda but also denies Jesus, etc.

So what? Do you not understand how we arrived in the poisonous current situation in the first place? "I'm a good [fill-in-the-blank] but I'm not a Christian. Make an exception for me!"

If you can keep your mouth shut and play nice, fine. They were called "blasphemy" laws, not "belief" laws. If you can't, then you can't be a part of the West. Because you aren't.

But if you really believe that free speech is over, and it's all down to tribalistic power dynamics now, then I have a few questions for you.

I seldom answer stupid questions, Jack. And you ask far too many stupid questions, which is why I ignore them. You have four more comments on this thread. If you try to monopolize this comment thread the way you did that other one recently, I'll just spam you.

Blogger OneWingedShark March 10, 2018 3:00 PM  

VD wrote:The First Amendment is observably dead
The real problem is that there are so many "First Amendment" issues that just aren't -- which is to say it doesn't and/or shouldn't apply -- because the courts have done a superb job making it say things it absolutely doesn't (and the indoctrination centers [public schools] have done a superb job in making people believe these lies).

First off, the First Amendment legitimately deals ONLY with Congress, we can see this in the very opening of the sentence "Congress shall [...]", therefore any application to any other entity than Congress is invalid.

People will claim that the 14th Amendment "incorporates the Bill of Rights against the States" but there's a fatal flaw here: in order to have any effect upon the States, somehow the subject/word 'Congress' must be altered in order to apply to the 'legislature' for the State in question. But where does this change come from? Where in the 14th Amendment is there text to the effect of altering the 1st Amendment? There is none.

Therefore, in order to have some effect on the States, the 1st must be reinterpreted. And who does this? Judges, styling themselves as superior to the very Constitution that authorizes them (directly, in the case of the USSC; indirectly, through Congress, in the case of inferior federal courts)... so this is merely an usurpation of power by those black-robed tyrants. -- The messengers think they are superior to who sent them, the slaves think they are greater than their master, and these judges think they are of higher authority than the Constitution.

Blogger Teleros March 10, 2018 3:25 PM  

Jack Ward wrote:I will not give up the First Amendment long as there is fight left in these old bones.

Agreed - though like VD says, I say to hell with both the SJWs and AIPAC types. Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I still believe that the truth will win out in the old marketplace of ideas - provided that said marketplace is actually preserved, of course. I know JS Mill isn't perhaps the best regarded writer around here (!), but I still tend to side with him on his defence of free speech.

it is time for Anglo-American Christians to go back to having the temporal courts enforce blasphemy laws that criminalize all blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, and punish violators with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine.

As I understand it the United States grandfathered in pretty much all English law prior to the American Revolution, which I guess would include the Toleration Act of 1688 & the 1697 Blasphemy Act. Though obviously overridden by the 1st Amendment at present, if the 1st Amendment is a dead letter, does that mean denying the Holy Trinity is blasphemy, and renders you incapable of holding any public office (for the 1st offence)? Given that you (and no doubt others here) deny the Trinity, or did last I checked, and that I trust you enough that if you have cause to doubt the Trinity then it is probably not an open-and-shut case that you're just plain wrong about, I again have to wonder about the wisdom of blasphemy laws that would make you a criminal :-/ .

Now sure, you're neither living in the USA or my own UK, you as an individual may not be particularly important in these things, you could exclude the 1688 and 1697 acts from your hypothetical blasphemy laws, etc etc etc, but that's besides the point:

1. Very smart person A believes X based on what appears to be sound logical grounds.
2. Lots of other very smart people (B) believe !X, again based on what appears to be sound logical grounds.
3. I do not know who is right and who is wrong.
4. If a debate can't occur between A & B, because A is a blasphemer and thus a criminal in need of punishment rather than reasoned debate, uncovering the truth of the matter becomes much more difficult.

Blogger Red Bane March 10, 2018 3:27 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 3:28 PM  

@23 Observer:
I understand your commitment to Atheism, same time I hope, for your soul, you find God. For, not for the essence of God and the teachings of the Christ, I wonder where we would be now? The essence of evil attacks all that we hold dear. Modern civilization, based on the moral teachings of Jesus the Christ, is far and better than most anything I know of from history that offers real hope for we, the common men, the 'flyover' folk that keep this country and civilization thereof working. So, be not a believer, until you are, and, I think, that may not be far removed from today, but, per your statement of support, I suspect you would be welcomed at my table.
@24 Jack
I feel a kinship since we share the same first name.
" You can't enforce these laws in the way that you want unless you have many people in the Establishment who agree with you."

With respect, you other Jack, the hell with the 'establishment' for, we ARE the people. We decide who the establishment is. We are awakening, and that dawning of realization will far offset any of the shallow opinions and attempts to shout down one of the greatest documents in history, The Constitution of the United States of America, second only to the Holy Bible.
We degree, until and if, this country becomes a full dictatorship, who the 'establishment' is. And, their greatest fear, I see these days, is that an 'awakened' morally based, electorate is, indeed, the greatest power in the land. Should if seem, as sometimes it does, that that moral supremacy, is in dire straits, then, well, remember that the best of us are well armed and resolute when the worse is upon us. Our resolution firm and our aim true. We will not go down without a fight and the massive beauty of those battles will resound thru history. Should they have to happen.

Blogger Red Bane March 10, 2018 3:30 PM  

Vox, hit us up with the a date, in terms of when you believe America was at it's best and tell us why this date in particular works best in light of your views.If you would be so kind (seriously)

Also explain how the Anglo Jewish program of block busting made things better. As far as I can see, whenever the Anglo or the Jew are around, people can't have nice things. All part of the reformation spirit of endless revolt against the spiritual and natural order I feel.

You are correct of course, History is not defined by ancestry. It is defined by the actions of fallible beings. And in the case of the Anglo-being, despite whatever ideals he may once have believed in ( a very very long time ago) his role in both America and the world at large has been a tyranny, and in large part an experiment unsupported by a true conception of God or our ontological relationship to Him. Lip service, at best, was paid to the Creator throughout all of America's history. Her decline, on that score, was inevitable.God is not mocked.

Anglo ideals were never solid enough spiritually, and this in large part is why they were never adopted by immigrants who came from much a stronger cultural milieu. Watching the game and mowing the lawn was always going to be a very poor substitute for true Christian tradition, which Protestants, by and large, have lost over the centuries.

Vox, I would love for you to have a live debate with Dr E. Michael Jones on these ideas. It would be the event of the year I feel.

And be assured, I support, financially, much of what you do and stand for and will continue to do so.

Thank you.

Blogger cheddarman March 10, 2018 3:39 PM  

punish violators with death, imprisonment, corporal punishment and fine...preferably in this order!

OpenID Mike Jackson March 10, 2018 3:44 PM  

All part of the reformation spirit of endless revolt against the spiritual and natural order I feel.

It's all part of the so-called "Enlightenment." Anyone who adheres to Protestantism and its so-called "Reformation" must know that the society we see today is the spirit of those ideas taken to their logical extreme: "I will do what is right in my own eyes." It was true with Luther, it was true with Henry VIII, and it is true today.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 3:46 PM  

Vox, hit us up with the a date, in terms of when you believe America was at it's best and tell us why this date in particular works best in light of your views.If you would be so kind (seriously)

America was at its most properly American between 1836 and 1855. Economic growth was rapid, the Bank of the United States had been shut down, and it was a genuine civilized Christian society. People were much better educated too; it's astonishing to compare the letters written by Americans then to what passes for communication today.

That's why so many Irish and the Italians wanted to immigrate around that time. It was a much better society than they had. Once the immigration began en masse in 1855, the seeds for the end of that America were planted.

Blogger Lovekraft March 10, 2018 3:54 PM  

@ 15 VD: "I respect that... as long as you fight both the Jews and the SJWs. If you only fight one and not the other, then you are not a free speech champion. You're just on one side and not the other."

I treat the former as drug addicts. The latter as the pusher. GloboJihad as a strung out tweaker.

I have a general question about the Roman Empire and its collapse (I'm far from an expert on the matter only getting the layman's general impression).

There's the idea that the introduction of Christianity helped with the downfall because it softened the population and took the old Roman Gods out of prominence.

So, if the U.S. is the modern-day equivalent of the Roman Empire, does this mean there will be an entirely new religion, or will Christianity somehow evolve and break away from its globalist/pacifist leanings?

Blogger Lovekraft March 10, 2018 3:55 PM  

Meant to say the latter as drug addicts, the former as pushers.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 4:12 PM  

There's the idea that the introduction of Christianity helped with the downfall because it softened the population and took the old Roman Gods out of prominence.

Gibbon pushed that idea. I don't think most historians take it seriously anymore. It wasn't Christianity that substituted foreigners for Romans in the legions and resulted in one foreign Emperor after another.

The primary reason nations and empires fall is a) moral degradation and b) immigration.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 10, 2018 4:13 PM  

"I seldom answer stupid questions, Jack. And you ask far too many stupid questions, which is why I ignore them."

Never do you sound more intelligent, Vox, than when you are dodging substantive criticism by dismissing your critics, or their reasonable questions, as stupid. It's your noblest quality.

There is nothing stupid about those questions, and you have to know that. The Establishment despises the Alt Right. The only reason you are even allowed to have a voice right now is because the Establishment feels constrained by the First Amendment from shutting you down. That's it. When the First Amendment goes, your platforms--or at least your freedom to speak honestly on them—will go with it. The same is true for the entire Alt Right. Nothing is more obvious than that.

Taleb's principle that when someone seeks power over you, to seek power over them is a strong one--provided you have a realistic chance of succeeding in gaining power over your enemy. But if an attempt to gain power over an enemy is guaranteed to maximize that enemy's power over you, then you might want to reconsider your strategy.

So if you can't answer those questions, Vox, then your position is totally unserious. It's just tough-talking bluster that you do not have the resources in the real world to back up at all, and the consequences of which you have not thought through.

Vox: "You have four more comments on this thread. If you try to monopolize this comment thread the way you did that other one recently, I'll just spam you."

Fine. I will not exceed three more comments after this one. But if you're going to complain about my having "monopolized" a thread, then you might want to remember that the very premise of that thread was that you had explicitly disagreed with something I said.

It's never my intention to monopolize any thread, but in that particular case, I think more frequent commenting was justified--and, indeed, in a sense was even invited by you.

Blogger Karl March 10, 2018 4:17 PM  

Related item at Thermidor recently - http://thermidormag.com/speaking-freely-of-freely-speaking-sedition/

"Steve Sailer quotes Audacious Epigone on one of his many GSS data minings to reveal an amazing discovery: support for free speech correlates with results on a vocabulary test, itself a proxy for IQ.

"What a horrid thing it is to find out that the fool becomes the wise in this crucial instance. The fool instinctively realizes that toleration of heretics is a bad idea, but the "wise" is so blinded by enlightened sophisms that he treats his ability to "hear out" the case of those committed to destroying him, as a badge of honor and sign of his more advanced development."

also see
http://thermidormag.com/communist-origins-of-modern-american-free-speech/

http://thermidormag.com/joseph-de-villele-against-freedom-of-the-press-1817/

Blogger vorlos March 10, 2018 4:21 PM  

He should tell Indiana University that he would be insulted by any degree from them because their obvious ignorance and open cowardice disqualifies them legitimate authority to grant academic degrees. Then demand his money back. Worthless lot.

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 10, 2018 4:36 PM  

@ 43

Maybe I can help. It is painfully obvious. You just have to resist the siren song of binary thinking, if only for a moment.

1. The First is no longer reliably enforced. It is sometimes enforced. Maybe most of the time. But not reliably.
2. A constitutional protection that is not reliable is not functioning as a constitutional protection. The point of constitutional protections is that you can depend on them.
3. A constitutional protection that is not impartially enforced, even if only part of the time, is subjectively enforced.
4. Subjective enforcement pretty much is "clearly all just a power game of "who, whom" between rival identity groups."
5. The fact that Vox' enemies haven't been able to shut his blog is irrelevant to #4.

Blogger Lovekraft March 10, 2018 4:43 PM  

@43: The fact that the establishment still has the power to censor only confirms our certitude, and I will point out that the establishment would not have the moral high ground in doing this. We are a necessary component in this and are doing quite well moving the window.

Blogger Johnny March 10, 2018 4:43 PM  

Lovekraft wrote:There's the idea that the introduction of Christianity helped with the downfall because it softened the population and took the old Roman Gods out of prominence.

This is one of those things that can be argued back and forth and I don't think anybody knows for sure. Christianity way back when was not all that soft a religion.

A curiosity in this is that when Rome fell, the left overs of empire became Christendom and the popes in Rome took to defending it. I believe a compelling case can be made that Christianity is what kept Europe from being taken over by outsiders, either the followers of Muhammad or the Mongolians.

It was the church that arranged the marriage between a warrior prince of proven ability named Ferdinand, and a wealthy female named Isabella. Lacking institutional support, it is unlikely it would have happened. It took a couple of years, but that was the end of the Moors in Spain.

When the great Kahn who had already conquered China made a well planned military move against Europe, it was Christendom that united the forces against him, and any warrior who died fighting against him went straight to heaven.

Blogger tz March 10, 2018 4:49 PM  

Rights are the privilege you get from either A. living among rational people, or B. being sufficiently armed that the death mobs can't violate them.

Remember that the right to life was defined away by sophists over 40 years ago, so it is not a violation of any rights to kill, also see Terri Schiavo and Final Exit.

Speak all you want, but we won't murder you, we will merely euthanize you.

Don't tell me about muh Constitution until Gold and/or Silver are legal tender again - and that article has never been amended or judicially nullified.

Blogger TM Lutas March 10, 2018 5:02 PM  

Ok people, here's the formula for any US institute for higher education acting against what a university is.
1. Who accredits this university so that the US taxpayer will send money there?
2. Find out where their complaint form is
3. Find out if they have empty slots at their commissioner level
4. File complaints
5. Nominate a slate of candidates and get them elected.

Not being able to receive government financial aid and GI bill benefit checks is a death sentence for most universities. You can count the exceptions on your digits and still have plenty left over.

If you really believe who, whom is the rule of the day, you want to control the Department of Education which certifies the accreditation bodies and the accreditation bodies. That makes you the "who" doing things to "whom".

But nobody on the right, alt or conventional ever plays that game.

Blogger weka March 10, 2018 5:04 PM  

Please. I have a couple of local departmentsof religious studies that need to be prune, rootand branch.

Does this termagent never consider the fate of the Jacobins or the gang of four?

Blogger tz March 10, 2018 5:06 PM  

@27 You confuse capital accumulation and technological progress with prosperity.
You could say Zimbabwe today is more prosperous than it was in 1850, but the difference is NOT anything the people did (actually they are bankrupt on a moral capital level), but the capital accumulation of knowledge and surplus of the first world, which is being drawn down.
There is the moral and spiritual, and that has been left in very few hands these days, and they often don't appear very prosperous.
There is the scientific and technical, which is real, but often denied ("fossil fuels are destroying us!").
Then there is the material capital which is being burned through faster than Pets.com did.

The alt-right is effectively accumulaing intellectual and moral capital, while (mostly) creating a huge short position on material capital. It is also called "prepping". As in making sure you have food, clean water, etc., not as in having gone to an ivy league prepatory school with a shirt with an alligator logo and Kakhis.

Blogger tz March 10, 2018 5:06 PM  

In a bit of irony, the more accreditations, the more discredited the curricula.

Blogger weka March 10, 2018 5:09 PM  

You can deny toe Trinity, and then you will be held accountable in the life to come.
In old England, if you were not a member of the church of England you could not vote, or attend university.

This was a saner time.

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 5:10 PM  

@Vox:
America was at its most properly American between 1836 and 1855.

Possibly so. We, or I at least, remember that that date of 1836 was a scant 6 years or so after Jackson rounded up the Cherokee and sent them packing west on the trail of tears. Not one of our prouder moments. You,as partial Native American may or may not agree. I'm not at all sure that Manifest Destiny is reason enough to act the bully on a national scale. If ridding the Southeast of most of the Cherokee nation helped usher in that touted golden age of America, not so sure of the price paid.

As for Jack Burroughs asking stupid questions. I doubt I can claim expertise this. Your blog, your prerogatives as to what content you put up with. This seems to be one of the rare enlightened blogs that can claim the interests of people with certain things to say and not have their comments shoved into the depths of dismissal with spamming and the like. I applaud that. I also think it's one of this blogs strengths that keep it going strong. I know that other Jack can get long winded at times and does comment often. But, suddenly, a limit of 4 more comments and it's to detention with you. This may be one of those rare moments when Vox and I manage to disagree. As I stated up comment, your blog, your rules, It does occur to me that I have been engaging far more often than usual on this particularly post. Chalk it up to a rainy day, a bit of rare liquid cheer, and a realization of late that I have been hiding from such engagement for several reasons, among them some somewhat mystical in nature. Strange statement the last; not to elaborate this moment. But, to hid from the world for little fears, or, even larger ones is no life.
So, with that other Jack getting a limit on comments I must assume I too must be careful not outstay any welcome offered here. I do have to say, in closing, I'm not judge of OtherJack's questions and their stupidity or sagacity, but a sudden limit?
Here, Lord of your Dark land, we disagree. Respectably of course.

Blogger Dave March 10, 2018 5:12 PM  

@43 Jack

Your butthurt is showing. Wasting one of your four remaining posts to whine about Vox not taking you seriously will never serve to further your cause.

See the post @46 by Uncle John's Band to get an idea why Vox and many of us here don't believe your questions or criticisms are reasonable or substantive. Act as if you're on Twitter and have to fit a question within the character limit which will help focus and narrow the scope.

Speaking of Twitter, perhaps you could tell me if the First Amendment applies to the Twitter platform or Google/Blogger platform?

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 10, 2018 5:14 PM  

Uncle John's Band, thanks for making a sincere attempt to answer my questions. I appreciate it. You make some reasonable points here.

However, my main question remains unanswered:

"1. The First is no longer reliably enforced. It is sometimes enforced. Maybe most of the time. But not reliably."

The First Amendment is obviously under threat, and I agree that it is not always enforced. But it is definitely still enforced most of the time. Its enforcement is why Vox Day is allowed to do what he does, day after day.

"4. Subjective enforcement pretty much is "clearly all just a power game of "who, whom" between rival identity groups."
5. The fact that Vox' enemies haven't been able to shut his blog is irrelevant to #4."

If you're going to practice who, whom politics, then you need to think about WHO really controls the Establishment. Because that it who the further weakening of the First Amendment is going to empower. And the Establishment is not controlled by people who agree with Vox Day.

And you're right that subjective enforcement weakens a constitutional protection, and opens the way to power games between rival identity groups.

But is that an argument for trying to further undermine the impartial application of the First Amendment? Or is that an argument for doing everything you can to *strengthen* it?

If you're thinking in terms of raw power, then the answer to those questions is determined by how much power your group is likely to have with either outcome.

It seems to me that the weaker the First Amendment becomes, the more powerful those who control the Establishment become, because it will enable them to silence dissident voices much more aggressively and completely than they are doing now.

And the stronger the impartial application of the First Amendment becomes, the more protected people like Vox Day and other Alt Rightists will be from the increasingly desperate desire of the Establishment to shut them down.

By this reasoning, the First Amendment should be the Alt Right's greatest friend.

Why pursue a strategy of weakening, or even eliminating, the only legal protection the Alt Right has from an increasingly censorious Establishment?

Even if you're ruthlessly practicing who, whom politics, it makes no sense.

Blogger Lovekraft March 10, 2018 5:30 PM  

@ 57: Here's the layers:

globally: vast, immense forces, nations of millions
nationally: a gentle but vague tugging at our need for identity, but pulled apart by multicult/globalism/mass media
community: yeah right. Hardly anyone really engages with their neighbors anymore.
The mind: our last refuge. Nothing the state can do will affect us if we believe we're doing God's work. Christians have this tendency to walk towards the fight (out of some need to fight so the weak don't have to).

Which leave the last realm in our modern age: social media. There's alt-right 'think tanks' that help us hone our arguments, support each other etc. Then there's the Big Machine pushing propaganda (think Huffpo, Bill Maher/Colbert).

Then there's the places where the middle will visit. Where the undecided will be educated. Some fertile ground that we should be engaged in.

So, in terms of free speech. WHERE this happens is paramount. They shut down the alt-right? I'll just bring that energy and focus to either the open MSM, or those neutral grounds. Shut those two down (Google/Twitter rapidly entering that phase under the false guise of being 'family friendly' whatever that means. How about some type of age rating ffs?)?

Part of me knows that the hidden forces are aware of just how much this could backfire. Pressure valves.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan March 10, 2018 5:35 PM  

So we are freedom fighters now?

Blogger Avalanche March 10, 2018 5:43 PM  

@57 "The First Amendment is obviously under threat, and I agree that it is not always enforced. But it is definitely still enforced most of the time. Its enforcement is why Vox Day is allowed to do what he does, day after day."

Vox Day lives in ITALY -- in what way does the First apply to what he says on the internet in a foreign country that is being read by folks IN America? Do you think somehow Google and Twitter have some sort of governmental powers they are 'prevented' from using IF they choose?

You DO remember the First (through Tenth) (were designed so they) put restrictions on the GOVERNMENT -- not on private businesses, right?

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 10, 2018 5:51 PM  

@ 57

"The First Amendment is obviously under threat, and I agree that it is not always enforced. But it is definitely still enforced most of the time. Its enforcement is why Vox Day is allowed to do what he does, day after day."

This is the crux of the issue. Once it is not always enforced, you no longer have the surety you expect from a constitutional protection. At that point, the frequency of enforcement really doesn’t matter substantively, because you have no way of knowing if you are next. You have gone from the realm of the ideal, which constitutional protections are at least supposed to fan service, into the realm of politics.

The question to consider is: how can you agree that a constitutional protection is not always enforced without seeing it is no longer what a constitutional protection is supposed to be? It's just skinsuit, really, claiming to be an impartial right, while not being.

As for the blog, it is a bad case to argue. If you are arguing from the Constitution, it pays to read it. An Italian resident on Blogger isn’t there because of the First.

Incidently, "The Establishment" is an abstraction, a classificatory category, made up of many different players. The question to ponder is why is Google cool with Vox? There are a number of possibilities, but none are the First.

“subjective enforcement weakens a constitutional protection, and opens the way to power games between rival identity groups.”

This has been, and is, happening. The fact that you are sitting out doesn’t mean the game isn’t on. There is a reason I post under this name. It has something to do with the selective enforcement of free speech…

Try and stop thinking as if big monolithic categories were more than useful abstractions.

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 10, 2018 5:52 PM  

@ 60

Beat me to it by a hair.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 6:17 PM  

There is nothing stupid about those questions, and you have to know that.

Your questions are definitely stupid. You're done here, Jack. Go away now.

I refuse to tolerate critics who insist, every single fucking time, attempting to personalize these topics and make them about me, any longer. I do not want anyone who cannot distinguish between macro and micro to comment here anymore. I am simply too busy to deal with this relentless idiocy.

Don't comment here again, Jack. I don't wish to hear from you.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 6:43 PM  

Vox Day lives in ITALY -- in what way does the First apply to what he says on the internet in a foreign country that is being read by folks IN America? Do you think somehow Google and Twitter have some sort of governmental powers they are 'prevented' from using IF they choose?

It doesn't. Jack is just doing the same stupid Gamma thing that Gammas always do, which is to try to personalize the issue and thereby prove that the other person's position must be incorrect because the other person is bad/evil/hypocritical.

You know an argument is hopeless when the primary object is to set the stage for an appeal to a logical fallacy.

Notice that it is the same damn thing every single time, no matter what the putative subject happens to be. Which is why I will no longer permit those arguments or permit those who make them to comment here.

Blogger VD March 10, 2018 6:45 PM  

But, suddenly, a limit of 4 more comments and it's to detention with you.

You haven't been around that long. I've utilized that tactic for well over a decade to rein in the emotionally incontinent who can control themselves and eliminate those who can't.

I had to impose it on the late, lamented Equus Pallidus on more than one occasion, before he could work himself up to the state where he was challenging everyone who disagreed with him to fisticuffs.

Blogger Jack Ward March 10, 2018 7:32 PM  

@65 VD
Actually I've been visiting Vox blog for quite a few years. I should have kept a log; creditability ammo as it were.
Enough of staring at a blog today...any blog. The issue of hogging a particular posting has hijacked the posting in this case. Well, tomorrow is another day and surely more issues to gnaw on.


Blogger Stilicho March 10, 2018 7:36 PM  

The fact that the Neocon-Cuckservative Azis of Weevil is willing to chuck the First Amendment into the trash bin for the sake of a foreign power, but can't be bothered to defend free speech for actual Americans tells you all you need to know about them and the reality of free speech.

Blogger eclecticme March 10, 2018 8:40 PM  

The student said the prof instructed women only to make comments first, and he spoke when no women said anything for 30 seconds. He SHOULD have said he identified as a woman that day and the prof was denying the reality of his trans experience and disrespecting him/her/zer.

OpenID Sidehill Dodger March 10, 2018 8:46 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:The real problem is that there are so many "First Amendment" issues that just aren't -- which is to say it doesn't and/or shouldn't apply -- because the courts have done a superb job making it say things it absolutely doesn't (and the indoctrination centers [public schools] have done a superb job in making people believe these lies).

First off, the First Amendment legitimately deals ONLY with Congress, we can see this in the very opening of the sentence "Congress shall [...]", therefore any application to any other entity than Congress is invalid.


Yes. I see a lot of misunderstanding of the 1st here. People talk of the First Amendment as being "enforced" (or not), as though it were a law. It is not a law, nor some sort of universal governing principle that is intended to govern our public utterances. The only meaning the Bill of Rights ever had was to limit the powers of the Federal government so that it should not pass laws that violate the Bill. Of course, that doesn't magically prevent the Federal Government from doing exactly that; but it does provide a legal platform from which such laws can be challenged. It is not a matter of magical power exercised by magical words, but of law and its processes. Given this definition, I am not ready to join our benign and patient host in tossing any part of the Bill of Rights onto the trash heap. The Bill of Rights may fail us, like any other human institution, but let's not hasten its death.

As Shark noted, the role of the First Amendment in the popular mind is to work as some kind of universal unguent that is applied so that anyone can express whatever opinions he feels are true today. Even those little stalins who are suppressing conservative political speech on university campuses feel compelled to justify their actions--for example by claiming that "hate speech" does not come under the free speech "guarantee". They want the magic salve, but they want to apply it as it suits them.

I think that our host (he being in a state of medium dudgeon, I refrain from uttering his cognomen, lest I draw his attention) is reacting against this false notion of the First Amendment as a universal quasi-legal potion of "free speech". As such, it is indeed not dead--it never lived. The way to challenge the leftist dreck is not through a prim appeal to Constitutional principles, but through all the avenues of power that are available to us. This is a fight, not a polite discussion nor a TV courtroom drama.

As for the prescription offered by our host to enforce Christian speech (presumably by way of another Constitutional amendment???), I feel have to inject a cautionary word. When have Christians ever agreed on matters of doctrine? History is pretty clear on this. When governments were explicitly Christian, they enforced their particular view of the Faith down to the smallest details. I would not welcome having to be so careful of my speech that I risk burning at the stake for uttering a careless sentence about the transformation of the elements of Holy Communion in...what was it gain? Substance but not form? Essence not substance? The other way around? I'd better read up on my St. Thomas.

Blogger Lazarus March 10, 2018 9:01 PM  

@60

You DO remember the First (through Tenth) (were designed so they) put restrictions on the GOVERNMENT -- not on private businesses, right?

Exactly why Social Media has to become Public Space thru the #InternetBillofRights

Blogger MB March 10, 2018 9:13 PM  

There is no powerful constituency for freedom (as opposed to licentiousness) in the present-day US.
Armed resistance by guerrilla movements in remote rural regions does not count. It's easily put down with mass executions, relocations, imprisonment, and torture (see the Ukrainians, Hmong people, the Vendéeans, and many others). Once the enemy has you there, you're as good as done.
Ever since the Sherman Act was watered down in the 70s, getting to the current situation was only a matter of time.
Probably at that time they were saying "if liberals use judicial activism for abortion and desegregation, why shouldn't we at least use it to strengthen big businesses and get their donations". But this was an evil bargain. Licentious behavior on both sides does not cancel out, it's twice as bad. And, due to this case law, the Sherman Act is now useless when most needed.
This is a natural consequence of democratic politics: the corruption of voters, the appeal to base passions, the descent to the least common denominator. You get abortion, I get the revocation of the draft; you get Glass-Steagall repealed, I get drug legalization; you get simplified divorce procedures, I get a tax cut. All these issues cut across the usual lines due to their noncontroversial nature, wide popular appeal, and/or narrow opposition base.
Prediction: soon after cable companies are rid of the threat of government supervision and "Internet neutrality", leftists will add deep packet inspection to their censorship arsenal. Conservatives will regret (but I'm repeating myself) taking Verizon's money in exchange for deregulation support.
Like Rousseau said, democracy is only appropriate for a people of godlike virtue; but he left out how it eventually corrupts them to subhuman levels.
Now the people are slaves to their passions and have lost any remaining power. To take a different sort of example, if everybody stopped paying taxes tomorrow, the professional army and government apparatus will still be paid through loans and fiat currency: an arrangement Charles I or even Roosevelt would have envied.
The age of democratic politics may truly be over. The wheel is about to turn again. The only question is who will end on top.
Prediction: it will be a popular general who has firm (but not necessarily fervent) right-wing and traditionalist sympathies, is good at politics, has good relations with the secret services and the main Washington lobbies, and, like Vespasian, knows that it "non olet". Someone like Napoleon, Franco, or (hopefully) Pinochet.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts