France’s Censorship Demands to Twitter Are More Dangerous than ‘Hate Speech’

Glenn Greenwald, Guardian (London), January 2, 2012

Writing in the Guardian today, Jason Farago praises France’s women’s rights minister, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, for demanding that Twitter help the French government criminalize ideas it dislikes. Decreeing that “hateful tweets are illegal”, Farago excitingly explains how the French minister is going beyond mere prosecution for those who post such tweets and now “wants Twitter to take steps to help prosecute hate speech” by “reform[ing] the whole system by which Twitter operates”, including her demand that the company “put in place alerts and security measures” to prevent tweets which French officials deem hateful. This, Farago argues, is fantastic, because—using the same argument employed by censors and tyrants of every age and every culture—new technology makes free speech far too dangerous to permit:

If only this were still the 18th century! We can’t delude ourselves any longer that free speech is the privilege of pure citizens in some perfect Enlightenment salon, where all sides of an argument are heard and the most noble view will naturally rise to the top. Speech now takes place in a digital mixing chamber, in which the most outrageous messages are instantly amplified, with sometimes violent effects . . .

We keep thinking that the solution to bad speech is more speech. But even in the widest and most robust network, common sense and liberal-democratic moderation are not going to win the day, and it’s foolhardy to imagine that, say, homophobic tweets are best mitigated with gay-friendly ones.

Digital speech is new territory, and it calls for fresh thinking, not the mindless reapplication of centuries-out-of-date principles that equate a smartphone to a Gutenberg press. As Vallaud-Belkacem notes, homophobic violence—‘verbal and otherwise’—is the No 1 cause of suicide among French teenagers. In the face of an epidemic like that, free speech absolutism rings a little hollow, and keeping a hateful hashtag from popping up is not exactly the same as book-burning.

Before getting to the merits of all this, I must say: I simply do not understand how someone who decides to become a journalist then devotes his energy to urging that the government be empowered to ban and criminalize certain ideas and imprison those who express them. Of all people who would want the state empowered to criminalize ideas, wouldn’t you think people who enter journalism would be the last ones advocating that?

I’ve written manymany times about the odiousness and dangers of empowering the state to criminalize ideas—including the progressive version of that quest, especially in Europe and Canada but also (less so)in the US—and won’t rehash all those arguments here. But there is a glaring omission in Farago’s column that I do want to highlight because it underscores one key point: as always, it is overwhelming hubris and self-love that drives this desire for state suppression of ideas.

Nowhere in Farago’s pro-censorship argument does he address, or even fleetingly consider, the possibility that the ideas that the state will forcibly suppress will be ideas that he likes, rather than ideas that he dislikes. People who want the state to punish the expression of certain ideas are so convinced of their core goodness, the unchallengeable rightness of their views, that they cannot even conceive that the ideas they like will, at some point, end up on the Prohibited List.

That’s what always astounds and bothers me most about censorship advocates: their unbelievable hubris. There are all sorts of views I hold that I am absolutely convinced I am right about, and even many that I believe cannot be reasonably challenged.

But there are no views that I hold which I think are so sacred, so objectively superior, that I would want the state to bar any challenge to them and put in prison those who express dissent. How do people get so convinced of their own infallibility that they want to arrogate to themselves the power not merely to decree which views are wrong, but to use the force of the state to suppress those views and punish people for expressing them?

The history of human knowledge is nothing more than the realization that yesterday’s pieties are actually shameful errors. It is constantly the case that human beings of the prior generation enshrined a belief as objectively, unchallengably true which the current generation came to see as wildly irrational or worse. All of the most cherished human dogmas—deemed so true and undeniable that dissent should be barred by the force of law—have been subsequently debunked, or at least discredited.

How do you get yourself to believe that you’re exempt from this evolutionary process, that you reside so far above it that your ideas are entitled to be shielded from contradiction upon pain of imprisonment? The amount of self-regard required for that is staggering to me.

There’s no scientific formula for determining what is “hate speech”. It’s inherently subjective. Every comment section on the internet—involving endless debates about which ideas should and should not be banned—proves that, including the comment section that quickly sprung up in response to Farago’s pro-censorship column, where numerous conservative or “New Labour”-type Guardian readers opined that the real “hate speech” are the Guardian columns that criticize Israel, the US, and other western institutions they like.

If “hate speech” is to be banned, those commenters predictably argued, we should start with left-wing Guardian columns. That’s the same mindset that took this concept of “hate speech” and used it to criminally prosecute a British Muslim teenager for the “crime” of posting a Facebook message that said that “all soldiers should die and go to hell”—a message he posted out of anger over the killing of civilians as part of the war in Afghanistan. When you sow censorship theories, that’s what you reap, because nobody has a lock on what ends up on the list of “hateful” and thus criminalized ideas.

Personally, I regard the pro-censorship case—the call for the state to put people in cages for expressing prohibited ideas—as quite hateful. I genuinely consider pro-censorship arguments to be its own form of hate speech. In fact, if I were forced to vote on which ideas should go on the Prohibited List of Hateful Thoughts, I would put the desire for state censorship—the desire to imprison one’s fellow citizens for expressing ideas one dislikes—at the top of that list.

Nothing has been more destructive or dangerous throughout history—nothing—than the power of the state to suppress and criminalize opinions it dislikes. I regard calls for suppression of ideas as far more menacing than—and at least just as hateful as—bigoted Twitter hashtags and online homophobic jokes.

Ultimately, the only way to determine what is and is not “hate speech” is majority belief—in other words, mob rule. Right now, minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago are happy to criminalize “hate speech” because majorities—at least European ones—happen to agree with their views on gay people and women’s equality. But just a couple decades ago, majorities believed exactly the opposite: that it was “hateful” and destructive to say positive things about homosexuality or women’s equality. And it’s certainly possible that, tomorrow, majorities will again believe this, or believe something equally bad or worse.

In other words, it’s very possible that at some point in the future, majorities will come to hate rather than like the personal beliefs of minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago. And when that happens, when those majorities go to criminalize the views which minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago hold rather than condemn, they’ll have no basis whatsoever for objecting, other than to say: “oh no, it’s only fair to criminalize the ideas I hate, not the ones I like.”

That’s because at the root of this pro-censorship case is self-flattery: the idea that one is so intrinsically Good and Noble and Elevated that one is incapable of hatred: only those warped people over there, those benighted souls, are plagued with such poison. But once you empower the state to criminalize ideas which majorities deem “hateful”, you should not be heard from when that is turned against you and majorities decide that your ideas should result in a prison sentence when expressed.

And this—the inherent subjectivity of “hate speech”—is all independent of the virtual certainty that the power which Farago wants to vest in state officials will be deliberately abused. How anyone can even casually review history and feel comfortable vesting censorship power in the state is endlessly baffling to me.

At any given point, any speech that subverts state authority can be deemed—legitimately so—to be hateful and even tending to incite violence. The theory advanced by western censorship advocates like minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago is exactly the one invoked by Arab tyrants to punish and imprison regime opponents: that such speech is designed to stoke hatred and incite violence:

A Qatari poet was sentenced to life imprisonment on Thursday for a verse that drew inspiration from the Arab Spring. Qatari officials claimed that the poem, ‘Tunisian Jasmine’, by Muhammad ibn al-Dheeb al-Ajami, insulted their nation’s emir and encouraged the overthrow of its ruling system. . . .

“The government’s initial reaction came in November 2011, when Qatari officials jailed the poet a few months after a video was posted of him reading ‘Tunisian Jasmine’, which celebrated the uprising in Tunisia that lit the fuse for the widespread revolt of the Arab Spring. In one of its particularly contentious passages, the poem claims ‘We are all Tunisia in the face of repressive elite’.

That sounds exactly like minister Vallaud-Belkacem and Farago, just applied to different opinions. The first instinct of the British government in the face of the London protests of 2011 was to ban certain ideas from being expressed on the internet. New technologies can always be used to challenge prevailing orthodoxies, and are thus always the targets of censors.

It is not possible, nor probable, but certain—100% inevitable—that empowering the state to imprison people for the expression of “hateful” ideas will be radically abused, will be exploited to shield power factions from meaningful challenge. Demanding that Google or Twitter suppress ideas specified by the state is the hallmark of tyrants.

All tyrants believe they are driven by a core Goodness, but that doesn’t make them any less tyrannical. If anything, people who are so intoxicated by a belief in their own superior Goodness pose a greater danger to core rights because they so easily justify power abuses when done by them: “of course I’m against censorship—in the hands of others—but not when done to suppress the ideas I’ve deemed hateful”.

This is exactly what drove the bizarre controversy this weekend over a truly warped Op-Ed in the New York Times by law professor Louis Michael Seidman that advocated that the Constitution be ignored—not amended, but just ignored, discarded. Even those rights that he likes—such as a free press or the right of due process—should be followed only “out of respect, not obligation”, he argued.

But as I repeatedly asked those progressives who praised the Op-Ed: what would ever stop the state from imprisoning people for expressing views it dislikes or doing so without a fair trial—or what would stop a majority from oppressing those who hold minority political beliefs or religions—if there were no constitutional obligations to refrain? They are willing to endorse the abolition of such constraints because they believe they (due to their core Goodness) don’t need them, and because they are somehow convinced it will not be abused against them. That’s the same hubris, the same self-regard, as what drives the pro-censorship case.

Ultimately, nobody needs Jason Farago, French minister Vallaud-Belkacem, or Twitter algorithms deciding which ideas they’re permitted to express on the internet and which ones should be criminalized. Gay youth and women—especially in the west—have seen their situations significantly improve with the emergence of the internet (I’d argue that it’s due in part to its emergence as a democratizing force, but at the very least, even if there’s no causal connection, these trends obviously co-exist). Although Farago mocks the marketplace of ideas as some sort of obsolete relic of the past, it is undeniably true that arguments in favor of equality for women and gay people have triumphed over bigotry, not because bigots have been imprisoned, but because those ideas have proven more powerful, more persuasive.

Criminalizing ideas doesn’t make them go away any more than sticking your head in the sand makes unpleasant things disappear. If anything, refusing to confront them makes them stronger. But what is certain is that few people have done as much harm in history as those who deem themselves worthy of criminalizing ideas they dislike.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

    The Guardian is probably the premier left wing paper in London. We’re making some progress.

    • So CAL Snowman

      I thought the exact same thing, I had to click the link to make sure I wasn’t on mushrooms.

      • Dazed

        You’ll see Glenn Greenwald on the unemployment line by tomorrow morning with this nationalist propaganda.

    • U.S.S.A.

      Both writers (Greenwald and Farago) happen to be from New York, not London. The Guardian publishes a lot of American writers. I give them credit for publishing this.

      I have heard Greenwald’s opinions before. He describes himself as independent, but most newspapers see him as liberal, or “progressive.” Greenwald is an uncommon GENUINE LIBERAL, the kind who are authentically open-minded. An extremely rare find. He is sincerely concerned with freedom, unlike many American liberals who are only concerned with adhering to the policy of the Central Committee of 1960s Liberaldom. Greenwald is too intellectually agile for that.

      • FourFooted_Messiah

        As I said, the sides have flip-flopped over the years. Free speech and personal liberty and freedom of religion and association (including freedom FROM such things) used to be the thing for the left, whereas the right was about censorship and stuff.

        Now that the left is in charge, they look very much like the old right, and the right has become the left, if that makes any sense.

        This is why I used to be a lefty, but now consider myself a sort of rightie (especially after being called an evil nazi for warning a young couple in Victoria, BC about the immigrant threat to freedom.)

  • The__Bobster

    I simply do not understand how someone who decides to become a
    journalist then devotes his energy to urging that the government be
    empowered to ban and criminalize certain ideas and imprison those who
    express them.

    __________

    I do. Journalists consider themselves to be agents of a leftist state.

    • Sloppo

      Journalists report what the propaganda network owners want them to … or they’ll soon be looking for a new place of employment. The propaganda networks report the version of the news that best promotes their agendas. They only tell the truth about anything to maintain an illusion of credibility.

      • FourFooted_Messiah

        Yup, that idiot noam chomsky was all about that in his day, claiming that the US news was biased. Yeah, this from the idiot who so hated the idea of apes being able to actually use language, he redifined language to take it away from young humans as well. in his misguided, illiberal campaign to keep non-humam apes out of the Temple of Language As a Defining Feature of Humankind.

        And damn regan-bush for rescinding funding for such projects, just because they were Christian jerks who also can`t admit that animals might be smarter than their dumb ancient book says they are.

    • Anders

      I simply do not
      understand how someone who decides to become a journalist then devotes
      his energy to urging that the government be empowered to ban and
      criminalize certain ideas and imprison those who express them. Of all
      people who would want the state empowered to criminalize ideas, wouldn’t
      you think people who enter journalism would be the last ones advocating
      that?

      Er…no.
      Your average ’20-something-hipster-journalist’ would advocate bringing back the death penalty for me if they knew what my opinions were.

      • liberalsuck

        That’s why I don’t like engaging in conversations with 20 somethings these days. Most are self hating, most are liberal and most are just looking to hear what you have to say to trap you. sometimes I’ll ask, “Why do you want to know?” or I’ll say, ‘Ok, I’ll give you my opinion, on the following conditions: you won’t lose your temper, you won’t call me names, you won’t get violent. Deal? Because you might not like my views. Just giving you a heads up.”

        • FourFooted_Messiah

          Unless you`re dealing with small-town farmer kids. They seem to both know how to work, AND have the right ideas on immigration and race.

          You know, the `hicks`.

  • NYB

    “We can’t delude ourselves (that) all sides of
    an argument are heard… and the most noble view will naturally rise to
    the top.”

    In the contemporary ideological war against white Western civilization, we know this to be true.

    Those who have the most purchasing power and control over the media place their ideas at the top. There is nothing natural or noble about it.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      Indeed. Those who are totally against financial capitalism will also be against the capitalism of ideas, too.

  • Oil Can Harry

    At least this Marxist Guardian hack mentioned that freedom of speech originated with 18th century white men.

    Free speech is a white thing; non-whites are conformists and would never have come up with this idea in a million years.

  • PesachPatriot

    Anything someone in power dislikes is hate speech. There is plenty of “hate speech” all over the internet but it didn’t do anything to those kids in newtown. The first amendment is not needed for sentiments like “kitties and puppies sure are swell” its needed to protect incendiary, blasphemous, offensive speech which actually challenges people….basically almost anything until yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Words on a computer can’t physically hurt anyone and words printed in a real world old fashioned book can only be harmful if the book is used as a projectile…I must admit to being fascinated by the concept of free speech as a kid…and voltaire’s quote “I may not agree with a word you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it”…only in a few western countries is free speech considered an inalienable non-negotiable right of even the lowliest of citizens…most of the rest of the world is used to centuries of the knowing looks, hushed whispers and displaying different opinions at work and in public than at home. I have read the guardian a few times here and there over the years but never much cared for it…

    • http://twitter.com/seedymedia r j p

      The first amendment is not needed for sentiments like “kitties and puppies sure are swell” ….

      I think that, here in the US, the number of kitty and puppy videos people see on the news being promoted as “going viral” is a testament to the number of idiots in this country.

      • FourFooted_Messiah

        Normal people like kitties and puppies. Only weird people would make a vid of some starving black monster kid viral, unless that kid was being eaten by vultures or hyaenas.

    • jackryanvb

      Nah, stop being so fair. Everyone other group from Blacks to Muslims doesn’t allow their people to be insulted, defamed, these groups play power group politics, threaten “trouble” or worse if speech, movies, books are negative towards them. Our side is far to nice and allows our people to be insulted, defamed, our women disrespected or worse.

      Ask yourself how the great Western heroes of old like Charles Martel, Vlad the Impaler would handle obnoxious, insulting Muslims, queers etc.

      I hope everyone reading Amren understands the significance of Hollywood/The Weinstein Brothers opening Django Unchained, a hate Whitey snuff film on Christmas Day. Think Hollywood would try something similar on a a Muslim holiday or Jewish high holiday?

      • PesachPatriot

        I have a pretty good idea how Vlad would handle it…with something wooden and pointy…For what its worth I think the Weinstein brothers are scumbags for putting out that movie on christmas day and i’m sorry about that….sometimes I don’t know which of my kinsmen i like least, the hollywood ones, the wall street ones or the politicians…their big mouths are writing checks that my skin will probably have to cash one day soon. If it makes you feel better the Hobbit will probably do much better at the box office than django…

        RJP….the kitty and puppy videos are hardly the worst example of stupidity in this country. I think people simply gravitate towards them as fuzzy, cuddly escapism from a world of horrors. The true stupidity is women who spend more on purses and shoes than some people make in a year and men who make a religion of sports watching.

        • jackryanvb

          Thanks for your kind words. Isn’t there something just a bit more people like you can do to your “kinsmen” in Hollywood who put out this hate Whitey, snuff film trash on Christmas Day – maybe something like protest in front of the Weinstein’s studios? It works better for people to work within their own group as American Jewish tend to circle the wagons anytime any American White Gentiles criticize any Jews, including loathesome Jewish Hollywood moguls like the Weinstein Brothers.

          • PesachPatriot

            I live on the other side of the country from the weinstein studios….Gas is a bit pricey these days for me to drive there and protest. If I lived in California it would be much more likely to happen. These kind of people are marginally jewish at best anyways except for the name…they have been absorbed in to the hollyweird lifestyle completely…if either of the Weinstein brothers married jewish, can even speak hebrew or go to synagogue more than 3 times a year I would be amazed…I will be boycotting the movie and telling others to do the same…I mentioned somewhere else on the forum that even if I drove to the DC offices of jewish politicians, the dens of iniquity on wall street or the filth factories of hollywood I don’t think anyone of them would listen to me even if I screamed at them until I turned blue in the face.

            Someone else mentioned that Hollywood and Wall Street wouldn’t last a month without white america’s money…all that is necessary to defang those two entities is cashing out 401K’s and stop watching movies in theatres. I have pretty much given up on politics anyways, to quote a great scottish punk band the exploited “It doesn’t really matter what you do or say, they never f*&%kin listen to you anyways”…all I can really do in this screwed up world is try and take care of my family as best I can.

          • FourFooted_Messiah

            Same attitude I wound up with. As for movies, well, it’s been a novelty for us to go to a theatre. We saw mostly good movies, the only stinker was that remake of “Total Recall” (AVOID!) But we do try to pick and choose carefully. Besides that trash remake, we also saw the avengers, and spider man, and a couple other blockbusters, at the second-run theatre. We saw the Hobbit in the one first-run theatre because it was near Christmas, and that’s a movie worth seeing in a good modern theatre anyway.

            Normally, I just pirate my butt off.

          • jackryanvb

            Please just do what you can, live a positive life and don’t contribute to the defamation and genocide of decent White Americans.

            That said, please do not make ridiculous excuses for the Weinstein brothers or the tribe in Holywood. Your tribe is a cultural/racial/ethnic group – same as the Irish or the Italians or the Arabs. Any honest person understands that the Weinstein Brothers, Steven Spielberg, Norman Lear the heads of the New York Times, Washington Post, Time Warner Communications, now CNN are Jewish. National Review after the Neo Con takever is Jewish. American Jews voted 80% for Obama – no other White American group besides White gays/homosexuals voted in such high numbers for Obama. OK, so there is a big problem. We American Renaissance readers don’t expect you to personally solve this problem, we just request that you make some small efforts in your area.

            A good start would be to do some simple protests against “Django Unchained” in your area.

            I doubt most or any White Gentiles in your area are forming mobs to harm you and your family over these terrible, anti White Hollywood movies, but more and more Whites in America are aware and concerned about the terrible anti White movies coming out of Hollywood, concerned about the horrible anti White propaganda being spewed for by Time Warner Inc, CNN, NBC, MSNBC etc.

            Let’s all try to do what we can, not be mean, hateful, but work to defend the legitimate rights of White Americans. We’re not God Chosen people, but we’re OK.

          • PesachPatriot

            In my book , white americans are a lot better than OK…you guys wrote the Constitution, ended slavery, saved Europe from its own madness twice, and are now trying to keep the rest of the world from going completely down the toilet. I also appreciate the invention of the telephone, the train, the airplane, the automobile, the radio, the computer, the cell phone, the major advancements in agriculture, rock and roll, country music and probably a bunch of other stuff that I cannot recall at the moment.

            My best friend in the north was mayflower material white and I always liked going over to his house when i was a kid to look at cool old books and pictures. His house was built in 1747 and it has artifacts from almost every era of american history. Many of us outside of hollywood and wall street are more pro-white than you would think…we didn’t come to America to have it turn in to Zimbabwe. I don’t have a good reason for why so many of us (not myself) voted for obama this time. Many of the more liberal jews in the northeast and california are influenced by their liberal white gentile friends and acquaintances in the media and academia…thats the best reason I can think of. Some of us know that someone whose middle name is hussein can not be trusted to have Israel’s back when the chips are down.

            I always thought everyone here pretty much just considered Irish and Italians as another sub-group of white people. As for the arabs, they are the least unified tribe on the planet….the only thing they can agree on is hatred for Israel and the infidel West. Their countries fight each other all the time( there have been more arab vs. arab conflicts since 1948 than arab vs. israel conflicts) and they also have lots of internal strife(lebanese civil war, arab spring).

        • FourFooted_Messiah

          Yes, the hobbit will probably do better – it’s actually a good movie. Saw the 2D version a few days after release.

          And yeah, I am suspicious of anyone who doesn’t go “aww” in a knee-jerk reaction to cute kitties and puppies.

          As for the purses and sports and stuff, I would like to add absorption into video games. Yes, I am guilty of that myself, but I am one who has already been thrown to the sidelines, and don’t have much better to do at the moment, unless and until I can get up the chutzpah to volunteer for something. But I don’t trust places looking for volunteers; they always want more, more more. I used to volunteer for a few things, but it would always wind up the same way. Example: Toronto Humane Society: “well, we’re glad you like walking dogs for us a few hours a week, but please take these cans and try to put them into stores, and then go back and check them every few days.” Me: “What? I just signed up to walk dogs.”

          However, the youngsters getting caught up in it as if having some great vid-game player vs player record is important, is disturbing.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      We still have the “knowing looks”, etc, in our PC-chilled society. The last little town I lived in, my husband inadvertently discovered something good about the community. It doesn’t like immigrants, and works to keep them out. Proof positive came one day during the rodeo, and some black chick hanger-on complained loudly in the grocery store about feeling “uncomfortable” in the town. I smiled. Also, some middle-easterners came and set up shop. First it was a liquor store (#4 in a place with only 1800 residents) and it failed. So they bought a restaurant, and set up a pizza shop. I went with the rest of the town the first week to see what was up. No one ever went back, they’re likely out of business and out of town by now. Their pizza was awful, anyway. Where most got their pizza from, ironically enough, was a long-standing restaurant owned by an elderly Chinese man, and the cook is a Filipino …. but they make very good pizza, and so the town let them stay. And yeah, the Filipino is a good and proud cook, he deserves to be here, if I can dare be that bold. They are decent, productive, and apparently quiet individuals with whom I can have no legit complaint. Obviuously, the rest of the town thinks that way, too, harsh as they are to others. My husband and I had no problems there beyond initial curiosity.

  • Ulick

    “there are no views that I hold which I think are so sacred, so objectively superior, that I would want the state to bar any challenge to them and put in prison those who express dissent.”

    Welcome to modern Liberalism.  They earnestly believe that their views are so sacred, so morally superior, that any challenge to them warrants disdain, possible loss of livelihood, and even possible imprisonment.  It’s a totalitarian ideology.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      Yup, this guy is a new rightie, but he may not realize it yet.

  • sad star

    I imagined the French women’s rights minister who was born in Morocco, to be a dark-skinned person in her mid to late 40s but it actually is a young woman who looks quite like a typical white person

    http://goo.gl/MYvH8

  • Ulick

    She must have the same compulsion to prove herself among Arabs that light skinned blacks like Ben Jealous, Thurgood Marshall, Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and so on, feel to prove themselves among blacks in America.  It often leads to an even more adversarial stance against whites (or the positions they typically support like free speech) to overcompensate for the fact that they have white blood.

    • Sternenlicht

      I was thinking in an analogous manner about the very, very white Spanish talking heads on Univision. They must be so conscious of their White Mexican upper social status, that they seek to expiate their moral unease with the Mexican racial caste system by advocating mass emigration of mostly Mestizos and Central American Indians.

  • IKantunderstand

    For example: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao.

  • The Final Solution

    What a waste of words from this joker Farago. Carrying out his plan will only encourage a huge backlash. Hopefully Twitter has no intention of entertaining his ideas.

    • liberalsuck

      When are most white people just going to say they’ve had enough? When are we going to shun interracial breeding? When are we going to expel people from our countries we don’t want? When are we going to stand up to people taking away our rights and freedoms? Our enemies are giving us more than obvious subtle clues they hate us and what their intentions are.

      • FourFooted_Messiah

        That’s the question. What right would have to be taken away from whites before they mass up and rebel and kick the interlopers out?

        I wonder if whites would rebel even if marrying each other were banned. The sheepy masses would probably say, “yeah, I am racist for choosing a white mate over a black or yellow or brown one. Bye, honey.”

        I dislike both humans and sheep for the same reason. They’re both as stupid as mud.

  • jambi19

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns. Why should we let them have ideas.?” -Joseph Stalin

    • Liberalsuck

      The words of a true dictator.

  • MartelC

    As Vdare often subtitles its articles “Diversity vs Freedom”.

    This is really nothing new. Multiculturalism is just a new mask for authoritarian empires – the only way to hold empires together is by force and suppression of dissent.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      Diversity vs freedom, yeah. If there was no non-white population, our worst concern would be the (relatively civilized) argument between the religious and the non-religious.

      But then, you could still expect a country to break up into two major pieces over that kind of stuff.

      It is very difficult for people of different cultures and values to live together.

      Good lord, I hope the space aliens keep the heck away. We don’t need the problems they would cause, eh? But hey, if they looked like anything more scary than the crap aliens from Star Trek, they’d be killed on sight and turned into coats or luggage immediately.

  • liberalsuck

    More ‘hate speech laws’ to silence white people while allowing nonwhites to say and do the most despicable thing to whites.

  • jackryanvb

    Glenn Greenwald sounds like that most rare of specieis:

    An honest liberal – someone who actually believers in free speech, even for straight, White Indo European men.

    We should honor the short appearence of such very endangered species. I’ve only run in to a handful in my life in and around American colleges and universities.

    • FourFooted_Messiah

      Free Speech used to be a Liberal value.

      The sides have flip-flopped in the past 30 years or so.

      I guess now that the Left is in charge, they now get to censor. When they were just a bunch of hippies it was “give us free speech so we can say what we wanna say.”

      Funny thing is, even sites with very politically correct forum rules have some very funny censorship. You can’t type “homosexual” on a World of Warcraft forum (and I’ve been banned from there, so don’t ask me to demonstrate.) The letters “homo” get (*&^% out.

      Heck that site used to ban the word “grape” because it has the word “rape” in it, sheesh.

  • FourFooted_Messiah

    Oh, Just read the first little bit. I see. Speech is OK, unless too many people are saying what the left does not want them to (indicated disagreement with the left and its ideals). Yup, typical.

    Yes, new communications technology is always problematic for those who wish to mind-control. I bet the very invention of writing threw the medicine-men into a tizzy.

    “Verbal violence”? Are you kidding me? As one who has had every insult in the universe hurled at them, even I think this is a stupid concept. What ever happened to “sticks and stones, etc”?

    Barring a “hateful” hashtag is EXACTLY the same thing as burning a book, digitally-speaking. It just isn’t as flashy as a bonfire made out of burning books.

    And yes, journalists were always on the cutting edge of defending free speech. What the heck happened?

    Yes, that’s the danger of censorship. The censors might not agree with YOUR ideas of what should be censored. I don’t like porn, so I simply don’t watch it. But if no one is being hurt, and everyone is being paid, well, I guess some losers have a job. I disagree with some religious ideas, but there’s no way that any of them should be banned. Just, in the case of Islam, maybe better practiced SOMEWHERE ELSE. And religious stuff can be the root concept of some very good entertainment (The Prophecy, Dogma, a million other stories and movies. I like the adventure in the Ramayana, too. Fun story, and I might even check out the Bollywood treatment of it one day, as much as I dislike East Indians themselves.) I don’t like hunting, but I wouldn’t ban the mags about it, because someone else will turn around and ban my High Times (for being about pot) and Discover (for being scientific, and anti-creationist of any stripe, Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Shinto.)

    “That’s what always astounds and bothers me most about censorship
    advocates: their unbelievable hubris. There are all sorts of views I
    hold that I am absolutely convinced I am right about, and even many that
    I believe cannot be reasonably challenged.
    But there are no views that I hold which I think are so sacred, so
    objectively superior, that I would want the state to bar any challenge
    to them and put in prison those who express dissent”

    Quoted for truth.

    Jeepers creepers, the founding fathers of the USA enshrined free speech in their constituion or bill of rights (can’t remember which, maybe both) for a REASON. Yes, only creepy governments censor.

    As for his comment about women’s rights being pooh-poohed, I don’t think it was ever as bad as what they put out. Yes, giving women the VOTE was a big issue, but that was really the only stink made (when opponents cutely equated giving the vote to women as equivalent to giving it to animals. Well, men vote badly too, and giving the vote to women and animals is a lot safer than allowing immigrants with new citizenship to vote. At least your own women can be influenced, and animals won’t be showing up to the polls on voting day.) I mean, does either of our countries give votes to the mentally retarded? I bet we do, and I’d sooner see my cat be able to vote than some human feeb that someone will bring to the polls and make it vote the way they want to and pretend it’s all fair. My cat doesn’t like travel, and so I wouldn’t bring her to some scary place like a voting station. I can’t even get her to walk down the apartment building hallway with me, all she does is whine at the door.

    As for women working, the only issue was “are there jobs for them that they won’t take away from men”. Which was nonsense, because women were always already working, at least in certain fields. The only real issue there was between couples – the man didn’t want to look like he was a bum, making his wife work for him.

    At least this guy gets the idea of the pendulum swing. What was popular today might be anathema tomorrow. Witness the history of Jews in Europe – at some times, no one cared about them. But every once in a while, everyone hated them. Then people would go back to not caring if they were around or not.

    yes, the marketplace of ideas is still a site of fully free capitalism – the best ideas get the most exposure. But yeah, situations can change, and youth always rebel. Perhaps some young kids will grow up being spoon-fed PC garbage and rebel against it just because it’s what they are expected to believe.

    • YoungWoman

      “Perhaps some young kids will grow up being spoon-fed PC garbage and rebel against it just because kids are like that.”

      Happened to this kid!! I never questioned the liberalism I was raised in and then I got to college and thought, holy wow, these classes are not objective and only one opinion is allowed.

      Even a lot of fairly liberal students I’ve spoken candidly with agree with me. People are just afraid to be the first ones to say things. And we hear so many stories of people losing their jobs for saying things we think most people suspect to be true…

  • Michael_C_Scott

    Two can play at this game. How would this “minister” appreciate my being allowed to decide on my own which “rights” it should be allowed to have?