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

Friday, May 25, 2018

Darkstream: the Free Speech Fake


From the recent transcript of my second successful attempt at livestreaming a Darkstream. If you want alerts for when I go live with them, subscribe to the voxday channel, which is distinct from the Voxiversity channel.

Here's the thing: If Jordan Peterson is a genuine free speech advocate, then what is he doing on Patreon? Why is he supporting an SJW-converged organization that is actively and aggressively opposed to free speech? Has anyone asked him that?

You know, the thing that you have to understand is that in the same way that Ben Shapiro is a fake American conservative, Jordan Peterson is a fake free speech advocate. Now, I'm not saying that the free speech is the most vital thing in the world - I'm not a free speech advocate myself - but if you're going to sell yourself as a free speech advocate, if you're going to claim to be a free speech champion, if you're going to run around the country, run around the world, lecturing people on how they they have to be individuals and they have to speak their own truth, then there is absolutely no way that you
should be working with a company like Patreon. There's absolutely no way that you should be supporting any business that is as ruthlessly prone to speech policing as Patreon!

This led to an informative exchange in the comments when one commenter quite reasonably requested a clarification concerning my claim not to be a free speech advocate. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever claimed to be, a follower or admirer of Voltaire. I will absolutely not defend anyone's absolute right to blaspheme or even be impolite, much less to the death. To the contrary, I have even pointed out how very wrong he was.

JustAintThatWay: "... I'm not a free speech advocate ..." Say what?  Clarification requested. From any WesternCiv, let alone a book publisher.  "I may not agree w/  what you say, but will defend to the death, your right to say it"-style.

VD: Read more about the history of free speech. It's nothing more than a philosophical attack on Western Civilization in general and Christianity in particular. JB Bury, a strong advocate, has written a very informative history that makes it clear that it was always about getting rid of the West's blasphemy laws.

Joshua Coleman: I'd recommend you read the Supreme Court rulings in Reynolds vs United States, Commonwealth Vs Nesbit, and Lindenmuller Vs The People. They reaffirm that the First Amendment, and in particular the Religion clause, was not a free license to say anything you like. Specifically, anything that was considered "Subversive of good order" and "overt acts against peace" were not protected, and among those things was advocation of immorality. The Libertarian / Conservative / Liberal interpretation of 'you can say anything' is ahistorical. The First Amendment was to protect your right to express your Christianity without State interference, not to subvert Christian order and morality. You could be prosecuted for doing or advocating immorality such as bigamy, polygamy, parricide, infanticide, etc.

Labels: ,

43 Comments:

Blogger Tino May 25, 2018 8:33 AM  

That's not at all what Reynolds held. Sometimes I wonder if any of you can read things plainly. You can talk, advocate, for and against bigamy, all you like and freely petition the Government to change the Law.
What you can't do is engage in bigamy. The Court held that it was appropriate for Congress to pass a law limiting NOT THE SPEECH but THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

Having said that, of course free speech/1st Am was to get rid of the obnoxious blasphemy laws. If there was ever relativist, subjective law, that was it. Good riddance. See Conceived in Liberty to embed yourself in the contentious nature of the times which lead to the 1st Am.

Blogger VD May 25, 2018 8:42 AM  

You're missing the point, Tino. The commenter mentioned Reynolds because it specifically addressed the petitioner's argument that "the First Amendment protected his practice of his religion". Not because it addressed free speech per se.

Having said that, of course free speech/1st Am was to get rid of the obnoxious blasphemy laws.

Those eucivic "obnoxious blasphemy laws" that have existed since Western civilization began are obviously to be preferred to our current state of godless non-free speech. But you are to be commended for understanding the real issue, unlike most.

Blogger Rickaby007 May 25, 2018 9:03 AM  

You lost Patreon but YouTube superchats are a thing. Milk those.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 25, 2018 9:05 AM  

Demonetization is only one of the sides of the pincer on the mark of the beast.

Blogger Garuna May 25, 2018 9:07 AM  

More evidence of Peterson's free speech fakery. He appeared on Tara McCarthy's show! She too is an alt-right white nationalist.

https://realitycallsshow.com/rcs-9-professor-jordan-peterson-the-future-of-western-civilization/

I remember watching the episode. And I'm pretty sure he didn't ask her the "three questions" that he demanded Faith Goldy should. So by his own logic he should be deplatformed.

Blogger FUBARwest May 25, 2018 9:09 AM  

It is going to take a long time for most people on the right to unplug themselves from the fake right matrix they belong to. The idea that free speech is actually a bad thing not to be desired in a Christian Western country is completely antithetical to what everyone in America has been brought up to believe for decades.

Blogger FUBARwest May 25, 2018 9:10 AM  

"I remember watching the episode. And I'm pretty sure he didn't ask her the "three questions" that he demanded Faith Goldy should. So by his own logic he should be deplatformed."

Rules for the, not for me.

Where else have u heard that before...

Blogger Scott Birch May 25, 2018 9:13 AM  

Did those seals really beat him to desth at night? I didn't know seals did things like thst. Extraordinary.

Blogger Looking Glass May 25, 2018 9:16 AM  

"Free Speech", being of a post-Enlightenment philosophical base, means it's quite the Synthesis. You take a useful public space good (Redress of Grievances) and mix it with Sedition, Treachery and advocacy of all degenerative forms. You then gaslight the topic so hard that people feel like they have to give up everything to fight against the evil that's been brought in.

That's really what they use "Free Speech" to hide: pure evil. VD is quite correct about the purpose. Heresy laws have a long tradition of being abused, yet, without them, you're already back to sacrificing children to demons in around 100 years.

A decade ago I'd have not thought this way, but the reality is for any Christian society, you will always need to "Burn your witches/Hang your Warlocks". There will always be sociopaths, gammas and unrepentant women that will seek, with unending fury, to destroy your society. You will always have to eliminate them.

Christians must always take down the "high places", lest the society fall away rapidly. The Bible spends 4 books drumming on about this point, it'd be nice if Christians listened.

Blogger VD May 25, 2018 9:17 AM  

You lost Patreon but YouTube superchats are a thing.

My channel is demonetized by YouTube, but apparently the streaming service I'm using permits some sort of equivalent. We'll see how it works.

Blogger The Observer May 25, 2018 9:18 AM  

Having said that, of course free speech/1st Am was to get rid of the obnoxious blasphemy laws. If there was ever relativist, subjective law, that was it. Good riddance.

Ha. Blasphemy laws are still plentiful and in full effect - perhaps even more so than they were under Christianity. The religion has merely changed.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 25, 2018 9:20 AM  

Subjective.

Says the person whose only object is some set of himself.

Please do tell more.

Blogger Looking Glass May 25, 2018 9:23 AM  

@11 The Observer

The "Free Speech" movement really just wanted to setup their own. It wasn't the laws they had a problem with; it was the religion behind them.

Hopefully over the next hundred years, being a Communist will just be treated as a capital crime and punished as such.

Blogger Alphaeus May 25, 2018 9:23 AM  

The United States Congress was not delegated the enumerated power of regulating speech. The 1st Amendment was intended to make that omission as clear as it could be made. The regulation of speech was one of the powers reserved to the States, and to the People, as also made clear in the 10th Amendment.
So, no, the intent of the 1st Amendment was not to impose a Voltairian regime of unlimited free speech on the country. The concern was that the Swamp Creatures in DC would start going to town controlling everyone's speech from their central location. Most civilized decent people had no problem with their state and local governments imposing prudent regulations on speech for the sake of the peace of society and not scaring the horses with obscenity and pornography.

Blogger single-digit May 25, 2018 9:28 AM  

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/05/25/pete-carroll-says-jordan-peterson-brought-amazing-perspective-to-staff/

Blogger Steampunk Koala May 25, 2018 10:02 AM  

Tino wrote:That's not at all what Reynolds held. Sometimes I wonder if any of you can read things plainly. You can talk, advocate, for and against bigamy, all you like and freely petition the Government to change the Law.

What you can't do is engage in bigamy. The Court held that it was appropriate for Congress to pass a law limiting NOT THE SPEECH but THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

Having said that, of course free speech/1st Am was to get rid of the obnoxious blasphemy laws. If there was ever relativist, subjective law, that was it. Good riddance. See Conceived in Liberty to embed yourself in the contentious nature of the times which lead to the 1st Am.


I did read it, which is why I posted it as an example (hi, that commenter was me).

From the Reynolds judgment itself, after quoting Jefferson on the wall between Church and State:

"Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.' Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order."

You can hold the opinion that polygamy is fine, but to advocate for it is 'subversive of good order'. Advocating for something IS an action as much as doing the thing itself is. Yelling fire in a theater isn't speech, it's an action, and intended to cause further action (and mayhem). Feminists screaming in the street that they have a right to kill their babies is not a right. Advocating for Abortion is also a crime, as infanticide was also determined to be against good order. Responsibility in sex and the care of children is a social duty. Our founders assert that rights come from God, ergo blasphemy against God is not a right. I remain correct in my assertion. America was founded by Christians to protect the rights of Christians, not the universal right of everyone, even those who hate America and her laws and people.

Blogger Rickaby007 May 25, 2018 10:04 AM  

@10
That's what I meant. Also, consider Hatreon, a Patreon alternative:

https://hatreon.net/

Blogger maniacprovost May 25, 2018 10:09 AM  

Feminists screaming in the street that they have a right to kill their babies is not a right.

I don't agree with you on this one example. But yes, advocating socialism should be punishable by helicopter.

Blogger Tino May 25, 2018 10:13 AM  

@2 VD

Fair enough. Not sure they are as eucivic as you think, but I will think about it. Incidentally, as a comics fan from before the big SJW shift, thanks for Alt-Hero and congratulations on its success.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 25, 2018 10:28 AM  

"I don't agree with you on this one example."

You can't really disagree on that one without permitting advocacy of all kinds of murder. It's just the easiest form, the murder of the most helpless for the convenience of their murderers.

Advocacy of murder can only honestly be said to be in violation of good order.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 25, 2018 10:31 AM  

On the note of punishment by helicopter, how do you feel about not advocating for, but rather funding socialism by defrauding US citizens?

Tell us how you really feel.

Blogger Dave May 25, 2018 10:39 AM  

Incidentally, playback of vid is limited to YouTube website only; intentional?

Blogger Dire Badger May 25, 2018 10:44 AM  

While I am the strongest possible supporter of Free speech and freedom to publish, I am not even slightly in favor of 'free expression'.
Interpretive dance is not speech. walking around naked is not speech. pornography is not speech. Feces-smeared pictures of the virgin mary are not speech.

Blogger S. Misanthrope May 25, 2018 10:46 AM  

The mere fact that so many 1A cases were brought to SCOTUS in the early years of the country is proof that- unlike 2A- “free speech” as understood today is not part of our cultural or philosophical roots to the extent free speech advocates claim. And I say this as a free speech advocate.

Blogger Sean May 25, 2018 10:49 AM  

Jordan Peterson is doing an AMA on Reddit today at 11am est. It will be curious to see how many hard questions he conveniently fails to answer

Blogger Bultz May 25, 2018 11:09 AM  

@25 it will be wall to wall "why do you hate trans" and "comment removed by (((moderator)))"

Blogger electricsheeple May 25, 2018 11:17 AM  

Vox, I actually think the JP Faith Goldy thing might be worse then even you think. I think that JP is intentionally lying about what happened. I went like 6 months believing that Faith Goldy was the interviewer, not the interviewee.

JP (who is careful with his words), implies that Faith Goldy was the interviewer. So if you only hear his response on the matter, you are mislead into believing Faith interviewed someone at the Stormer. Not the other way around.

I'm basing this on TWO different occasions that JP addressed the Faith Goldy Question (links below).


Does anyone else think he is misleading people into believing that Faith was the interviewer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmab5olDcQs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zLcMGCedA&t=197s


The second one he calls it, "her interview", "her podcast" "her journalistic duty."

Is it just me, or is he trying to create the illusion that she is the interviewer?

Blogger Chris McCullough May 25, 2018 11:23 AM  

I always assumed that the Mark of the Beast was going to be more hardcore and metal. Kind of lame it turned out to be a blue checkmark.

Blogger VD May 25, 2018 11:28 AM  

Incidentally, playback of vid is limited to YouTube website only; intentional?

Probably has something to do with the way the streaming is set up.

Blogger VD May 25, 2018 11:29 AM  

Incidentally, as a comics fan from before the big SJW shift, thanks for Alt-Hero and congratulations on its success.

You're welcome, and thank you! We're just putting the finishing touches on the print edition of Issue #1 literally right now.

Blogger Garuna May 25, 2018 11:30 AM  

I think that JP is intentionally lying about what happened. I went like 6 months believing that Faith Goldy was the interviewer, not the interviewee.

Same here. Peterson's response mislead me into thinking that Faith Goldy was the interviewer. It wasn't until Vox went after Peterson that I found out in the comments section right here that it was the other way around.

The guy is such a fucking dishonest worm. Such people are the height of creepy. The Peterson we see up on our screens is nothing but a performance. Who knows what the real Peterson is really like. What his past really is. And what parts of him are either hidden or just made up or miscontrued.

Blogger R Webfoot May 25, 2018 12:14 PM  

@5 Garuna
More evidence of Peterson's free speech fakery. He appeared on Tara McCarthy's show! She too is an alt-right white nationalist.

remember watching the episode. And I'm pretty sure he didn't ask her the "three questions" that he demanded Faith Goldy should. So by his own logic he should be deplatformed.


Well... he did go off on a spiel about "don't do identity politics, kids, it's how you get Nazis." I remember watching that episode; it was his first red flag for me.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd May 25, 2018 12:20 PM  

maniacprovost wrote:Feminists screaming in the street that they have a right to kill their babies is not a right.

I don't agree with you on this one example. But yes, advocating socialism should be punishable by helicopter.


Screaming in the streets is not conducive to social order. Advocating murder isn't, either. Combining both seems to cross a line.

Helicopters don't seem to be an improvement over the traditional punishment for witches. Burn 'em.

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelpia May 25, 2018 12:59 PM  

VD wrote...

Here's the thing: If Jordan Peterson is a genuine free speech advocate, then what is he doing on Patreon? Why is he supporting an SJW-converged organization that is actively and aggressively opposed to free speech? Has anyone asked him that?

Well, I think he's making about $60 grand a month from Patreon, so I guess THAT'S a reason. It's easy to turn a blind eye when the money's rolling in.

I speak from experience.

Besides, he'll need that dough when his world comes crashing down around him, you know, for therapy for the therapist. Shit's expensive.

Blogger Mr. Deficient May 25, 2018 1:33 PM  

The number of so called liberals, classic and otherwise, who actually are willing to "platform nazis" is so small its not even worth counting.

Blogger Thomas Howard May 25, 2018 1:43 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Thomas Howard May 25, 2018 3:04 PM  

Theories about the intentions of the Founders with regard to the First Ammendment, free speech limitations, and blasphemy laws are all well and good. Then I glance at the state of affairs over in the UK with regard to Count Dankula, 87 year old ladies who wonder about the changes to the Auschwitz death estimates, and Tommy Robinson today. My reaction to the concept of these limitations shouldn't be dependent upon who is drawing the lines.
None of this was half the issue prior to the advent of our multicultural societies, of course.

Blogger Scott May 25, 2018 3:04 PM  

Of course there's always the magic word that escapes the first amendment: hate-crime, hate-speech, hate-baking, etc.

Blogger Lovekraft May 25, 2018 3:09 PM  

Free speech is good when it allows people to see the true nature of our 'leaders.' Every time AbortionQueen Richards spouts off about how abortion empowers wimminz, many perk their ears up and think 'what's this old broad going on about?"

Free speech is bad when there are hidden string-pullers that decide whose voices are heard and whose are silenced, so that permitted speech turns into psychological assault on the designated 'enemy.'

It really comes down to the public education system and how it prepares the populace in discerning these voices and reaching their own conclusions/not falling for the Obamaswagger. Age-old debate. One of those eternal struggles.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 25, 2018 4:34 PM  

"The number of so called liberals, classic and otherwise, who actually are willing to "platform nazis" is so small its not even worth counting."

Of course. It's been twisted into a scare word by their masters, since there's nothing else they can do about something they largely agreed with at the time.

Unthinking rejection is their only means of psychological protection.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine May 25, 2018 4:39 PM  

And to top it off, since they're unable to think about it, they can neither recognize similarities in themselves, nor discern that other parties lack any similarities to it. So, as long as the first deception is maintained, declaring anathema on innocent parties with it is a snap.

Blogger SirHamster May 25, 2018 6:28 PM  

Scott Birch wrote:Did those seals really beat him to desth at night? I didn't know seals did things like thst. Extraordinary.

Not even seals tolerate pedophiles.

Learn from the seals, oh sluggard!

Blogger LP999-16 May 26, 2018 12:59 AM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8zLcMGCedA

(This is a shorter clip, the longer version is on youtube. Approx 20 mins.)

JBP: I know Faith personally, however..."

Jordan blames Faith, the other woman on the panel said, "oh she is soo nice but bad-do, bad-think."

This is a anti Christ bias hiding behind some free speech Canadian-Americano beef.

Later on in the video they play the game of 'we didn't throw her under the bus but we did but didn't' with a zinger; "oh, you should have asked tough questions." Crowning journalistic blah blah while insulting Faith yet this panel of Liars gets an applause.

Idiots.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts