Love Liberty? Allow Yourself to Be Offended

Walter Williams, WND, April 21, 2015

What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech? It does not come when he permits people to be free to say or publish ideas with which he agrees. Not by a long shot. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits others to say and publish ideas he deems offensive.

In March, a video surfaced of a racist chant by Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity brothers at the University of Oklahoma, a public university. It has brought widespread condemnation and the fraternity’s suspension. Two fraternity students have been expelled. The University of Oklahoma’s president, David Boren, said, “To those who have misused their free speech in such a reprehensible way, I have a message for you: You are disgraceful.”

The Western world was shocked and outraged by another speech issue that led to the murder of 12 people at the offices of French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo in Paris. Islamists were retaliating for what they considered the newspaper’s vulgar portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad, an insult to millions of Muslims.

What’s the difference between the actions of the University of Oklahoma administrators and the actions of the Islamist murderers in Paris? Both found the speech in question offensive. Both took actions against the people involved in that speech. So what’s the difference? It’s a matter of degree, but not kind. Both were unwilling to tolerate speech they didn’t like. Of course, the difference in responses is by no means trivial–one being expulsion and the other murder.

The principle that applies to one’s commitment to free speech also applies to one’s commitment to freedom of association. The true test of one’s commitment to freedom of association does not come when he permits people to associate in ways he deems acceptable. The true test comes when he permits people to associate–or not to associate–in ways he deems offensive.

{snip}

Permitting discriminatory practices in publicly owned facilities–such as libraries, parks and beaches–should not be permitted. That is because they are publicly financed by taxpayers and everyone should have a right to equal access. Denying freedom of association in private clubs, private businesses and private schools violates a human right.

{snip}

Liberty requires bravery. To truly support free speech, one has to accept that some people will say and publish things he finds deeply offensive. Similarly, to be for freedom of association, one has to accept that some people will associate in ways that he finds deeply offensive, such as associating or not associating on the basis of race, sex or religion.

{snip}

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.
  • phorning

    Progressives hate liberty and abhor our first amendment. They have already been successful and ending freedom of association and working on destroying the rest of it.

    • propagandaoftruth

      “Denying freedom of association in private clubs, private businesses and private schools violates a human right.”

      Progressives are Marxists, whether they admit so or not. Their totalitarian goodism is most vile wickedness imaginable.

      “So what’s the difference? It’s a matter of degree, but not kind. Both were unwilling to tolerate speech they didn’t like. Of course, the difference in responses is by no means trivial–one being expulsion and the other murder.”

      The way modern western Marxists commit genocide and murder against their enemies goes like this…

      1. Deny biological reality of race. It is purely a social construct, therefore a race is transformed into a class.

      2. Eradicate the class enemies. Marxism, being race-blind, can stomach genocide when it’s merely mass murder of a “class”.

      3. By converting the entire country into a massive, semi-comfy concentration camp and working by degrees, mass murder is accomplished. Sure, death may take decades for the guilty, slow, humiliating – punctuated by a whimper rather than a bang.

      • Lion’s Mane

        Early Marxists called the Scottish Highlanders “racial trash” and called for their genocide.

        • I’m glad they call Scots that. It identifies them as the criminal expletive-deleted moderated-morons they are.

      • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

        When are they going to start forcing whites to marry and breed with non-whites? The first step will probably be making us invite them into our homes, whether or not we want to, because it’s “racist” not to hang out with minorities. I’m honestly surprised they haven’t tried that yet…or maybe it’s already happened?

        • Rossbach

          Former French President Sarkozy suggested that the power of the state should be used to promote miscegenation as the sole anodyne to racism. Probably, countries with “progressive” regimes like the US and the UK will eventually levy a tax on “white privilege” which will be waived for all whites who marry (or simply procreate) with nonwhites.

          There’s an odd thing about it, though. If race truly does not exist (being only a social construct), wouldn’t it just disappear through state indoctrination? Why would we have to miscegenate? Could it be that the Marxists really do believe that race exists (thus, the need for “diversity”) but don’t want to admit it?

    • Jason Lewis

      When I was a kid it was always the liberals who would quote Voltaire “I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” My how times have changed.

      • Rob

        Libs are hypocrites. They use things only when it suits them.

        • Guest

          <<>>>>Beachum>>< Google is
          >
          >.
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

        • Guest

          <>Madge<<< Google is
          >
          >..
          >>>>>><
          ➨➨➨➨➨➨➨➨ http://WWW.JOBHUGO.COM

          JUST GO TO THIS AND CLICK ANY LINK IN THIS SITE FOR PROOF
          ❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚❚
          –>

      • Cindy

        I know, right! Not that I know a lot about it, I’m Gen X. But I know it was college students that protested for free speech in the 60s. Now we have college students protesting against free speech, and they even have a “naughty words” list which has been discussed on AmRen before.
        I saw an article where they explained that the free speech movement of the 60s was more about sex, porn and swearing.
        I used to think hippies were cool. Now I’m convinced they were the first step in ruining America. They make me sick and I won’t watch documentaries about the 60s because it’s always about hippies.

        • Rob

          The documentaries about hippies in the 60s all want to make the hippie ideology cool and to make more people follow them. You are right about them destroying America. Their leaders like Jerry Rubin who said “Do it if it feels good’ and he also encouraged them to kill their parents if they objected.

          • Cindy

            Yeah, they did look cool. They were standing up to the “man.”
            They were changing the world, they were doing something important with their lives. Ach!
            Two generations later we have a bunch of Snowflakes. America is weak and lacks leadership. It all started with those damned hippies.

          • propagandaoftruth

            They were the street soldiers in the American Marxist Revolution. Started around the Kennedy assassination, ended around the Nixon resignation and Manson trials.

            Then there was the counter revolution from Reagan through the 90’s, but, as in Soviet Russia, the reds have finally suppressed the whites in more ways than one.

          • Luca

            The hippies are only a symptom and by-product of the disease. Liberal politics, policies and operatives are the disease.

          • LHathaway

            You’d love liberals if their entire agenda was completely reversed, about helping White males. At least, I would.

          • Cindy

            True.

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            The worst thing you can do is give your children an easy life. Forget who said that, but it rings true. Their parents should’ve horsewhipped them all, then cut off the $$.

          • Cindy

            Exactly! The rebellion against authority started in the 60s and never ended. This has devastated our culture and our country. Gone are the parents and teachers who said:
            “This is my home/classroom. I am in charge. I am older, wiser and stronger. When you are in my home/classroom you will do as I say. And when I tell you that you have gone far enough, you will go no further.”
            These men are gone.
            Eliminated or silenced by a tsunami of PC.
            This hatred of authority has now reached our borders. We have no one to stand at the borders of America and say:
            “This is my country. I am in charge. I am stronger than you and you will not steal from me what I have built. You will go no further.”

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            Jerry Rubin? Every.Single.Time.

          • Rob

            What do you mean every single time??

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            The last name of these civilization destroyers all belong to one particular ethnic/religious group. Every. Single. Time.

          • Rob

            ok. Gotcha! Also add to that list Betty Friedan, Bella Azburg, Gloria Steinham, Allen geinsberg. The list goes on.

          • Like Ted Kennedy, an Irish Catholic drunkard and serial-adulterer who killed a young woman?

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            They have a term for the “cattle” that do their bidding. I bet you know what it is!

          • Rossbach

            Not the goyim, surely?

          • Rossbach

            That unfortunate lad had a few problems but his intentions were good.

      • groidle

        “Liberal” is just a meaningless word in this day and age.

        • propagandaoftruth

          Yeah. It was ,the word behind which Marxists hid. Then the Neocon/libertarian think tank PR blitz eventually sullied the term and now “progressive” is the word that’s supposed to mean what “liberal” once meant.

          But it’s just the official Marxism of the West, like “Marxism-Leninism” was the official Marxism of the Soviet Union.

          • Weisheit77

            Yeah, because they had sullied the name “progressive” 90 years ago so they slowly started becoming the “liberals”. Now since that is a dirty word and Americans have very short memories they’re voila the progressives again.

        • Weisheit77

          It’s an intentionally meaningless word. You can’t argue against an undefined term.

        • Cindy

          “”Liberal” is just a meaningless word in this day and age.”
          ____
          I use “Liberal” for lack of a better word. They constantly change wording and move the goal posts, so it’s hard to keep up. I think maybe “Progressive” would be more accurate.

      • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

        Remember “sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me”? Or, “go ahead, it’s a free country”? And I’m not even that old, but it’s changed so much in such a short time.

        The worst part of it all is how grim it is. Nobody can tell a joke, there’s a whole dictionary full of “offensive” and banned words, you can’t have a cigarette, a burger or sugar, you have to watch every single move you make and can’t be spontaneous or enjoy yourself because Nanny is always watching. It’s like being a child again, but far less fun, because there’s none allowed. They don’t enjoy anything so they damn sure don’t want YOU to enjoy anything. Misery loves company, another true statement from the past.

        • Rossbach

          The state (that is supposed to wither away once the vanguard of the proletariat seizes power) actually has become corporate parent, a all-wise and benevolent adult who ministers to the needs of her children. You cannot have a republic of children. If the American people accept this, it is “game over” for their republic.

      • Spoda Be

        In the 60’s the pagan libs shouted, marched and whined their “Free speech, free speech” mantra. But now that they have the upper hand along with and through their henchmen in the media they guillotine any and ~all~ speech with which they disagree.

    • Lion’s Mane

      Exactly. They also hate and fear the Second Amendment, which is intended to safeguard the people’s liberty. They promote ‘soft tyranny.’ What do they love? Social Engineering.

      Liberals believe that government must control human nature, which they deeply distrust. They crave POWER over people’s lives. They use every institution — education, psychology and psychiatry, the media — to rule over people with an iron rod and rob them of their essential liberty and human dignity.

      • Spoda Be

        Lion. Your comments are exactly spot on. Wish I could upvote your comments more than once.

  • I wonder what kind of reception Mr. Williams would get if he spoke at an Amren conference. I wonder if he would do it, and I wonder if he would be allowed. Not that I’m suggesting such a thing, just wondering.

    • InAFreeCountry

      You can’t argue with the man’s ideas. I’d trade the blacks Kim Kardashian and Bruce Jenner for Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.

      • groidle

        Same here, and I’m a virulent “racist”.

    • Cindy

      I believe Mr. Williams would be welcome at an AmRen conference. Paul Ramsey was one of the speakers at this year’s AmRen conference (unfortunately I was not there) Paul Ramsey has a channel on YouTube, ramzpaul. There’s a video he made from the conference, it’s called “AmRen 2015 Faces of Evil”. That’s Ramsey humor.
      He said the conference was not only White people, it was diverse. Ironically, the protesters were all White!

  • Luca

    Walter Williams, among other things, is a realist.

  • JohnEngelman

    This is why those on the right who defend Joe McCarthy and the House Committee on Unamerican Activities are wrong. Democracy works best when the voters are exposed to diverse points of view.

    • Jason Lewis

      McCarthy fought the Communist who were working undercover. Yes exposed is best.

      • JohnEngelman

        Unless they were engaged in espionage they had the right guaranteed by the First Amendment, to propagate their opinions.

        • propagandaoftruth

          Working to undermine our system and overthrow our constitutional government based on clearly elucidated Marxist-Leninist ideology seems a threat to me.

          Just as Islam specifically calls for war and death to it’s enemies, so does Marxism. Why, after Adolf Hitler, do dreamy types assume that others don’t mean what they say when they say “I will bury you!”?

          Regardless, McCarthy’s disgrace discredited more of the anti-Marxist movement than is credited, I think.

          • JohnEngelman

            This comes from the website of the American Communist Party.

            ———

            Communists believe that social change can only be accomplished through the united action of mass movements which express the majority will of the people. Peaceful methods of change are not only the right thing to do, they are the most effective way to unite and mobilize the greatest majorities.

            Violence, on the other hand, is a tool of the big corporations and the governments they control. To preserve their power, they use violence against workers’ and people’s movements.

            In contrast, Communists seek to change society peacefully. We work to expand every democratic and electoral avenue as part of our fight for working class political and economic power.

            Our party believes that it is possible to make fundamental transformations using the electoral process, the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

          • JohnEngelman
          • Weisheit77

            A racist, pinko democrat. You really need to stop posting here and get to work on a time machine. You’re about 80 years too late. I guess barring that, we could put you in a museum.

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            Don’t forget his choice in women! The last name says it all, if you pay attention.

          • He’s apparently some variety of Protestant, but those “people” who filled up Lewiston, Maine with Somalis were likewise.

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            There’s usually one hiding in the family tree in 95% of cases. Crypto-YKWs.

          • Honestly, how far does one go back?

          • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

            I’m not really sure when it comes to them. I personally go with the one-drop rule when it comes to others, so maybe the same for them.

          • Cindy

            “In contrast, Communists seek to change society peacefully.”
            ______
            This is how the 3rd World is crossing our borders. Peacefully. People who stand up and say they want limits on immigration are called racists. This shuts them up. Immigrants flood in.
            No violence. Real peaceful like.
            Liberal/Progressive/Communist – all cut from the same cloth.

          • Luca

            The communists/progressives are promoting, diversity, inter-racial relationships, pornography, legalizing drugs, a race war and open borders. They are re-writing history by accusing Americans of being nothing but Imperialists, racists and chauvinists. They are demonizing, White, heterosexual, Christian Males through public and university education They have started a campaign of blaming capitalism for all the woes in the world including income inequality and global warming. They have taken over main stream media, labor unions, academia and Hollywood. They want to see the US diminshed in the world and the current form of government overthrown.

            But let’s all sit on our hands because after all, they are doing it “peacefully”.

          • Cindy

            Yeah, they’re ruining America. Our descendants will wonder why we didn’t fight harder to save our country and our freedom.
            Or maybe not. History will be re-written and become so perverted our descendants may never learn how good we had it when Whites were in majority.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Yeah, that’s progressive Marxism all right.

            Bolsheviks were hard men whose culture had never known anything but autarchy and for whom violence was more natural.

            In an advanced, wealthy, democratic system, there can be no violent revolution since the proletariat is too well off, too happy.

            So…conflate race with class and wage war on the race that most stands in the way of Marxism. Of course we lack the hard men that the Russians had in 1917, so we convert our entire country into an inescapable semi-comfy concentration camp where we are slowly, incrementally eradicated…

          • newscomments70

            “In contrast, Communists seek to change society peacefully. ” Then why did they murder 100 million+ people in death camps? Communist propaganda consists soley of lies. You can visit youtube and watch North Korean propaganda. They talk about freedom of religion, speech, human rights, peace…and that western countries are imperialist and evil. It’s all pure BS. They have tortured, murdered, and raped millions innocent people for imagined offenses. White liberals used swoon while watching Soviet Propaganda. They ate it up. In the 30’s, Stalin was recruiting Americans to “work” in the Soviet union. The propaganda was very impressive. (Stalin’s propaganda machine was gleefully trained by liberals in Hollywood). 100,000 Americans signed up for this experiment. 20,000 were accepted and left for the Soviet Union. Most were tortured and murdered in Gulags. Only a small handful survived. A survivor wrote about the experience in a book called, “The Forsaken”. Useful idiots are disposed of by the left, eventually.

          • JohnEngelman

            The members of the American Communist Party are innocent of all that, and harmless. I doubt the Party consists of more than one or two thousand members nationwide. At its height during the Great Depression the CPUSA may have consisted of ten to twenty thousand members.

            There never was, and there certainly is not now, any danger that a Communist dictatorship would be imposed on the American people.

            During the Cold War Communist espionage was a legitimate concern. Communist subversion was not. The American Communist Party had and has the same right American Renaissance has to propagate its opinions, and to compete in the marketplace of ideas.

          • Weisheit77

            Oh, then who was it that subverted academia? Martians?

          • JohnEngelman

            What do you mean by “subversion?” If those you name as “Cultural Marxists” have come to dominate the academy it is because they have presented better arguments than those of your persuasion.

          • newscomments70

            One or two thousand isn’t much of a threat, but most people leaning toward communism/far left have matriculated into the democratic party. At this time, the Democrats are far left. Claiming that they have a right to exist and excercise free speech is similar to giving Isis the right to exist and have free speech. In a truly free country, yes, these groups have a right to free speech…it’s just that we know their dangerous objectives, and we don’t want them here. We all know the end game for far left domination: tyranny, destruction, and stripping people of their freedoms and human rights. This is happening in the Western world, as we speak. These groups are anti-American, anti-white, and anti-Christian. They enable black on white rape, and scream “racism” if you raise your voice to complain. They are the enemy from within. We cannot live side-by-side with them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Have you read the essay that begins this thread? This is what Walter Williams writes: “What’s the true test of one’s commitment to free speech? It does not come when he permits people to be free to say or publish ideas with which he agrees. Not by a long shot. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits others to say and publish ideas he deems offensive.”

            I agree with Walter Williams. I favor no restrictions on political debate. That is why I defend the right of race realists and Communist Party members to express their opinions.

          • newscomments70

            I favor no restrictions either, it makes it easier for us to identify the enemy. Liberals in Europe have taken debate to a new level. If you disgree with them, you are arrested for hate speech and your organization could be banned. In the US, a dissenter has his character assinated, and he loses his job and pension. Liberals/far left do not want free speech. That is another lie from their propaganda. I suggest watching the video that propaganda of truth posted. A former KGB agent basically states that liberal “intellectuals” have selective memory about communist atrocities. It is a fascinating video, even if you disagree with it.

          • newscomments70

            I don’t know if you will watch the video, but I found one point really interesting. The KGB targeted eager leftists in other countries to spread their propganda. In the end, such “useful idiots” were considered dangerous. Some idealists would eventually become aware of the Soviets lies and brutality. The leftists could become dissillusioned, bitter enemies. These “idiots” were to be used for a specific purpose, then liquidated when that purpose was fufilled. Most foreign leftists that the KGB worked with were targeted for execution.

          • I can explain that. Communists want peaceful takeovers, so THEN they can start murdering people later on.

          • Cindy

            Yeah, peaceful takeover is perfect plan. None of their people perish and they’re free to murder at their leisure later on. It’s win/win for them.

          • Weisheit77

            So you’re a commie, too? Just how hard did you hit your head?
            Communism, the most murderous ideology to ever exist, is peaceful. Yeah, I heard Ted Bundy was a nice guy when he was in the bar buying a girl a drink.

            You are a piece of work, sir.

          • JohnEngelman

            I have never belonged to the American Communist Party. I did belong to an organization called the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.

            Once I attended a fascinating seminar on Das Kapital given by the Washington, DC chapter of the American Communist Party.

            I have known and liked members of the American Communist Party.

          • “Our” party?

          • JohnEngelman

            Their party. I am quoting from the Communist Party website.

        • Weisheit77

          You could say we were at war…

          • JohnEngelman

            During the Second World War the Soviet Union lost an estimated twenty-eight million dead and one third of its industrial and farm plant.

            U.S. Cold War policy after the Second World War was based on the assumption that a country that had suffered so much was in a position to conquer the world. That assumption deserved wider debate in the United State than it received.

    • propagandaoftruth

      McCarthy was a reprehensible cad but his concern was 100% spot on. His disgrace forever tarnished the ant-communist movement.

      Most Soviet era espionage during the Cold War involved funneling massive funds to American Marxists and pseudo-Marxists, especially in academia.

      • Rob

        McCarthy may have had good intentions, but his methods were not good and that is what brought him down.

        • Lexonaut

          “… his methods were not good …”

          It was not and is not illegal to be a Communist Party member in the USA. However, it was perfectly appropriate for McCarthy to expose the State Department nest of USSR fellow travelers that went to great lengths to try to stop the prosecution of the A-bomb espionage ring.

          I know about this stuff — my parents, whose politics I did not share, knew the Rosenbergs before and during the war. My mother’s best friend was one of Oppenheimer’s secretaries.

          The witch hunt was not McCarthy unjustly accusing people of being enemies of the USA, he was the victim of a vicious — and very successful — smear campaign to take the nation’s eye off the ball.

          • Rob

            I agree. If he had succeed, the US would not be a hellhole it is today.
            So what made you not want to be a commie. Hope your parents now see the light. What made the want to be commies?

          • Lexonaut

            I’m 71 — my parents are long dead. What prevented me from becoming a communist was the fact that I started reading newspapers and thinking for myself when I was ten. It wasn’t hard to see that there was an enormous difference between the America that my parents thought they were living in and the America in which I was living. They were still my parents, but I just didn’t buy what they were selling.

            What motivated them? We see it every day in this country — people who benefit from the system they hate but don’t see their own hypocrisy.

            Those things said, I did have some attitudes that smack of socialism. I wasn’t cured of them till I read “Wealth of Nations” ten years after college. Note, however, that I think it just as important to have a healthy population as an educated one. I just think that Obamacare is the worst possible way to go about achieving this goal.

          • JohnEngelman

            Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and therey lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people…

            It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

            – Adam Smith, from Wealth of Nations

          • Lexonaut

            Thank you. I hadn’t realized that Smith was a socialist. Was it he who said “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”? Or was that someone else?

            Of course the merchants and manufacturers of his time acted in their self interest. So did the workers and farmers. His whole point is that if the system is left alone prices generally will stabilize around those values that equilibrate supply and demand — market clearing prices.

            Regarding taxing the rich, nobody disagreed. A century before Smith Charles II persuaded Parliament to implement both a wealth tax and an income tax — the total being on the order of 2% as I recall. People did their best as individuals to evade these taxes, but nobody felt they were unfair.

            Why weren’t they seen as unfair? Because they had almost no impact on commerce. Smith also went into great detail about the benefits of lowering import duties and internal transfer taxes, depending on circumstances.

            Fine, you found a quote you like. Have you actually read the book? If so, search out the passage about the baker’s self interest being what provides bread for the working man’s dinner.

          • JohnEngelman

            Of course I have read the book. The Wealth of Nations was not a defense of capitalism against a socialist attack. Socialism did not exist as a movement when it was published in 1776,

            The Wealth of Nations was an attack on mercantilism. Today we could recognize mercantilism as crony capitalism.

          • Lexonaut

            “Of course I have read the book.”

            Then why the misleading cherry-picked quote in your original post?

            Actually, I know why. The clear implication was that evil merchants and manufacturers were enriching themselves off the backs of the working class, which is the never ending message of you, my parents and every socialist and communist who ever did and ever will live, and that Adam Smith had said as much, which is the most outrageous kind of leftist distortion of reality.

            Smith railed against mercantilism to be sure, but he was also strongly advocating free market entrepreneurial capitalism, which creates the rising tide that lifts all boats as opposed to the zero-sum game which is communism, in which the only way for the leaders to get rich is … drum roll please … at the expense of the working class.

          • I received bitter complaints when I was working the gun shows in the mid-1990’s. I once ordered a thousand 30-round AK-47 magazines to sell at gun shows for $2000, or $2 each. I sold them at $7 each, or three for $20, which put it in “impulse purchase” territory. Other dealers complained that I was doing a hatchet-job on their prices, but customers loved it. My profit was 250%, unless one counts gas money, renting a table at the gun shows and the time it took to drive and set up. I reckoned that if I couldn’t make 20% on something, it wasn’t worth doing. Since everyone knew what stuff normally cost, this was sometimes a tad difficult.

            I didn’t drive up I-25 in howling blizzards to make my competition happy; I did it to make money. I made enough money in the first few weeks to pay off the credit card I had used in the original order, and the rest was gravy.

            Moving volume at good prices is where mercantilism is where it’s at.

            “Ask not what your profits can do for you; ask instead what you can do for your profits.”
            –Ferengi saying

          • Lexonaut

            “Moving volume at good prices is where mercantilism is where it’s at.”

            Precisely. Nicely put.

          • Spoda Be

            Have enjoyed reading your multitude of comments over the years. And appreciate your incredible candor. And this Ferengi saying!

          • Rob

            I hope your parents saw the light later in life and tried to educate others that communism is a bad thing and will bring nothing but pain and disaster. I hope the rest of your family is smart like you. According to me, membership in the communist party, ADL, SPLC, La Raza and ALCU should be made treasonous and punishable with death.

          • Lexonaut

            My parents never woke up.

            I can’t agree that membership in those organizations should be made illegal. What’s needed is actual education in actual American history and actual economics.

            I’m not up for a dictatorship though in a way it’s already here thanks to leftist control of the schools, universities and news media.

          • Rob

            I was surprised that Eisenhower also did not follow McCarthy and tried to rid the US of that cancer.

          • Lexonaut

            Eisenhower had no particular commitment to either political party. He ran for president on one single issue, putting a stop to the pointless war on the Korean peninsula, which he did.

    • Weisheit77

      His heart was in the right place, and the people whom he was going after are responsible for the moral rot in this country, namely the Hollywood string pullers.

      • JohnEngelman

        What part of the word “freedom” don’t you understand? Those who do not want to watch Hollywood movies do not need to watch them.

        • We’re quite picky about what we will watch in that respect. I have never had any sense of humor at all when it comes to my own money: none. Ethnic Scots were notorious as being far worse than Jews in this respect, so the name of the game over here is freedom of choice. Spending money (and time) watching the moral and social equivalent of nuclear waste is thus a non-starter. Hollywood is very often the equivalent of a cultural Chernobyl, and one must make allowances for this fact. This isn’t really any different than knowing that certain other things – while completely legal – are also unhealthy, such as smoking and drinking. Caveat emptor applies, I believe.

          The fundamental difference, however is that there are warning labels on tobacco packages and alcohol bottles, while the Hollyweirdos portray the lifestyles depicted in many of their productions as healthy, normal and even virtuous. Freedom of choice works properly when it is educated choices which are made.

          • JohnEngelman

            All you need to do is avoid watching R Rated movies. I usually do.

          • My mother won’t watch today’s war movies. I prefer gritty realism in Westerns as well. We watched Clint Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” together, in which the violence is quite minimal until the very end. She had no idea what was going to happen, but I sure did, once William Munny started drinking again.

            Sometimes Hollywood producers get things right. In the 1979 movie “Alien”, the explosion of the alien from Cain’s chest was kept a secret from the rest of the caste until actual filming, so their horrified reactions on film were real.

            Well-made movies are fun. Have you noticed that in “The Sixth Sense” everyone who is already dead is wearing red? This is a useful clue as to the nature of Bruce Willis’s character.

      • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

        YES! Hollywood and the “entertainment industry” are probably the biggest problem. How many people do you know that don’t watch TV or go to movies? It seems to be all the majority of people talk about, no matter their station in life. And it’s all anti-white and race-mixing propaganda. Even if you prefer to read, the same people that run Hollywood also own and run the publishing houses, and the names of the authors and/or the books they publish, push their agenda. Their control is almost total.

        I noticed something…any time there’s a disaster, the news person, or witnesses interviewed, almost ALWAYS say “It was like a movie!” People emulate celebrities, they want to be just like them, entertainment news is big business. Look at the Kardashians and who they’re paired with. Pushing an agenda. Bruce Jenner “becoming a woman” (puke) pushes their agenda as well, and people lap it up. It is very rare to meet people in real life that aren’t almost completely influenced by Hollywood and celebrities. It’s madness!

  • Bo_Sears

    There are other principles that modify, without rejecting, the First Amendment, and one is that it is okay to counter-attack slanders & slurs on the ground that it is a supremacist stance that allows one to name, describe, define, and describe the Other. We need to oppose supremacism when it comes to false claims embedded in someone’s attempt to seize our power to name ourselves.

    This whole thing has nothing to do with “being offended.” That’s an element in the anti-white narrative. However, the diverse white Americans have the right to reject & condemn any element in the anti-white narrative that attempts to tell us our name, label, definition, or description.

    I don’t think hate speech against anyone or any group should be made the subject of judicial
    jurisdiction, but operating privately or together (like ADL & SPLC) we may condemn
    naming & labeling when it infringes on our right to name ourselves.

  • IKUredux

    First, this country was settled by White people who were oppressed by other Whites for religion. Then, this country was expanded by the immigration of Whites oppressed economically in their countries of origin. (European). The founders of this country, and the subsequent tides of people who followed were all White. Christian. They were all desirous of becoming American. They received no handouts. There was no welfare.

    It meant something to be an American. And, while the principles of the founding of this country were held in the highest esteem, this country was never regarded as a “proposition nation”. NO. Liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom, free speech, the right to bear arms. All of these, and, the people who sacrificed life and limb to cross the ocean to reach these hallowed shores, came here for more than a “propositional nation”. They came because they believed in the land and the people who had founded this great nation. A country that was in direct defiance of the aristocracy of Europe and the serfdom they endured. They immigrated here to escape the bonds of Europe.

    The current influx of illegal aliens, and legal immigrants in this day and age of modernity, are not your Father’s, Grandfathers, or Great Grandfathers immigrants. Nope. These people are simply looking for a free lunch. A free public school education. A free everything. Look, this is no longer the Dark Ages(well, actually, kinda). The peoples of the world now have access to foreign aid. There are helping hands galore. White helping hands of course, but, who is counting?(besides me) The current theory is that all races are equal. Therefore, all races can equally succeed. In their own countries. With, needless to say, the financial help of White people to get them on their feet. And get them on their feet ad infinitum.

    Because they are our equals, staying in their countries of origin, surrounded by the people with whom they share blood, culture, and language, is the ideal.

    Because they are as smart as we are, then it is extremely patronizing of White people to assume the Somalians are incapable of working out their own problems and allowing their refugees into our country.

    In fact, at this point in time, allowing any migration from non White countries into White countries is RACIST. We smug Whites are assuming that the non Whites of this world are incapable of solving their own problems.

    How dare we? Where do we get off thinking that the panacea of the world’s problems, is allowing non Whites to move into our countries? How utterly disgustingly paternalistic! We, as Whites, should be ashamed.

    We Whites should hang our heads in shame. And, stop our racist immigration policies.

    • Rob

      Well said. Now if only we can get the libs to see the light.

  • Sam Brown

    When I look around at what has become of the West I can honestly say I don’t love ‘liberty’.
    Europeans as a people were more successful when we had out traditional cultures, and traditional political systems.
    Too much ‘freedom’ is obviously just as bad as too little and has led us directly to the sorry state we find ourselves in today.
    Moderation in all things is usually the wisest path.

    • Weisheit77

      Funny, America did quite well with these ideas until the 50’s and 60’s when they rewrote the meaning of a lot of things, especially “freedom of association”. That concept has long been dead in America.

      • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

        It worked just fine in a homogenous, white society. It cannot work with any other. I think John Adams said something to that effect.

  • LHathaway

    So, Whites can only associate with one another if we are gay. . . . ?

    “Of course, the difference in responses is by no means trivial–one being expulsion and the other murder”.

    These boys weren’t sent to jail. . . which would be arguably the use of violence, certainly coercion.

    The difference between the two is that the establishment and the leftists don’t have to use violence to get what they want. Unless one believes they are motivated only by principle . . . They are not using direct violence because they don’t have to. Violence is what animates them, however, and what rules us. Naked violence is what is behind it. They feel it serves them and is on their side. Before it is done, they will understand violence is what rules them. They understand that now just not on a conscious level.

  • listenupbub

    The second you talk about freedom and liberty is the second you stop being convincing.

    These principles are not based in any concrete reality. We only have five senses, and we cannot sense any “metaphysical” realities, even if they exist. So it is futile to make claims regarding human rights and freedoms.

    We just need to recognize our tribal nature and act in accordance with it, because the chance of any individual successfully rewiring his/her brain is too low to work for an entire society.

  • Lexonaut

    “Liberty requires bravery. To truly support free speech, one has to
    accept that some people will say and publish things he finds deeply
    offensive. Similarly, to be for freedom of association, one has to
    accept that some people will associate in ways that he finds deeply
    offensive, such as associating or not associating on the basis of race,
    sex or religion.”

    Absolutely correct. Williams got my attention when he wrote an article in which he reported a student asking what he wanted to be called in class. “My last name is Williams”, he replied, “and my first name is Professor.”

    • Cato

      Actually, most students would be most comfortable with calling him “Dr. Williams”. The problem is that there is a minority of faculty who want to be called by their first names, and this confuses students (it confused me back in the day). So imagine that young Bertie, calls out to Dr. Williams in class “Yo, Walter, what was that you said?” So easy to get offended. But poor innocent Bertie had just spent the previous hour in his sociology class, where Dr. Freestone wants to be called “Silvia”.

      • When I was teaching freshman laboratory chemistry at UNSW Sydney, my students called me “Sir”. I had to look behind me the first time, wondering whom they were addressing, and it took some getting used to.

  • LHathaway

    They label their censorship programs ‘free speech’ initiatives. They’ve been virtually unopposed so long, the double speak has become relatively transparent. They’ve been virtually unopposed since McCarthy. God rest his brave soul.

    • Mangosteen, $1000 chair

      McCarthy was a true hero. The left loves to slander him every chance they get. The more they whip up hatred against someone, the more likely that person is someone who’s telling the truth.

  • Sapere Aude

    From the article above, re. the SAE racism incident:

    University of Oklahoma’s president, David Boren, said, “To those who have misused their free speech in such a reprehensible way, I have a message for you: You are disgraceful.”
    ===================================
    From the Council of Conservative Citizens:

    Dorial Green-Beckham was a star football player for the University of Missouri. However, he was kicked out of the University on Friday, April 11, 2014. He was accused of smashing his way into an apartment and hurling an 18 year old girl down the stairs. Green-Beckham was never prosecuted because the alleged victim stopped cooperating with police. The victim told police that she feared the wrath of Green-Beckham’s girlfriend, friends, and supporters. [Green-Beckham was guilty by his own admission.]

    OU president David L. Boren, the man who banned the SAE fraternity and expelled some members, thought Dorial Green-Beckham was a good fit for Oklahoma University.
    ===================================
    David Boren welcomed a criminal black onto the OU campus because he’d be good for OU’s football business, but the SAE white fraternity was shut down and the students involved expelled.

    David Boren, you hypocrite, I have a message for you: You are disgraceful.

    • newscomments70

      White liberals such as that are accessories to rape…and should be treated as such.

      • Weisheit77

        Don’t blame the white liberals. Blame Bubba Gump and Jimmy-Bob who still watch college football. Blame the millionaire “faux-conservatives” alumni who donate tens of thousands of dollars on the sport’s programs so they can park next to the stadium. Blame everyone who buys clothes and other materials with the school’s logos on them. This is $, plain and simple.
        Blame every southerner that lives for Saturday.

        • newscomments70

          Bubba Gump is actually a name for fictional shrimp company, founded by a black man named Bubba, and a white man named Forest Gump. I won’t split hairs though though. It’s not just Southern white males who watch college and pro sports, but it is common enough. The lion’s share of the blame belongs to liberals, but there is enough blame to go around.

  • Light from the East

    Libertards are easily offended and insist their ideas are right all the time no matter what so they always plan to oppress others’ freedom of speech for fear that someone will debunk their selfish, contradictory, unnatural characteristics.

    • They have cultivated the art of pretending to be “offended”. Were they genuinely offended so easily, they would be complete sissies, afraid to leave their own homes.

      I eagerly await the day when they collectively shriek in terror at all the nasty blue stuff surrounding that horrible, bright yellow thing in the sky, claiming to be “offended”, and really do stay indoors.

  • Tyrone Shoelaces

    Universities are definitely the worst when it comes to destroying free speech. Over ten years ago I literally shocked a graduate seminar by quoting Faulkner directly from the text of one of his novels. I said the “n-word” because I was quoting dialogue from the novel, and one negro character was referring to another negro character with that word. I was told afterward by the professor that in the future, I should literally say “n-word” instead of quoting the text. He didn’t have a problem with me or my quoting the text, but I was told that the other graduate students wouldn’t tolerate it, and it would make me look less offensive to them. I asked him why we were reading Faulkner, if his language was so offensive. He looked sort of sad, and told me that we might not be reading Faulkner much longer anyhow. He said that it wouldn’t be an outright ban or censorship, but that “controversial” authors would simply be “eased” out of the canon, and replaced with newer, “more relevant” authors. It wasn’t foo many years ago that some academic made a ton of money by using a word processing program to replace the “n-word” in “Huck Finn” with the word “slave,” thus making it safer for younger students to read. I doubt it will be too much longer before Twain is completely bumped from the the canon as well, for the sake of convenience and political correctness.

    • Spikeygrrl

      Coming from an academic family, and myself having earned a gaggle of post-degrees and full-fellowships I never put directly to use — but man oh man did they impact my career! — I state without equivocation that this bowdlerism is inexcusable. Whether you want to study Twain as literature or as sociology, you pervert your own purpose by whitewashing (sorry, but not really) the patios of the times.

      Yanking literary merit out of it entirely — OUCH! — en-eye-double-guh-urr is merely a descriptive, used by both North and South. The term “slave,” OTOH, carries a frightening amount of modern-day weight which Twain never intended.

      Does anyone who has actually read the book — Cliff Notes don’t count — ever walked away with the notion that Twain SUPPORTED slavery??!! If so, shame on you. In episode after episode in this picaresque novel it is JIM, the escaped slave, who — with his actions more than his words — consistently takes the moral high ground.

      Would that we had more Jims today.

      [Edited by author: My spellchecker REALLY didn’t like “bowdlerism.”]

  • HJ11

    I don’t need a Black to give me cover for what I know is right. I have absolutely no desire to point to a Black and say “see he agrees with me so I must not be a racist.” And, isn’t that what we often hear from Whites who are too timid to actually BE White?

  • newscomments70

    I love his explanation of useful idiots for the left…and what happens to them, in the end.

    • Cindy

      Communism is awful. But it has one bright spot. Liberals are silenced.

  • I’ll thank you for not putting words in my mouth.

  • Cindy

    I spent an entire afternoon a few months back watching all the videos of this guy. So strange how relevant his words are today, 30 years later. Liberals never change.

    • newscomments70

      Not many people listened though. I’ve never even heard of the guy. His words are amazing, but they didn’t travel far beyond cable access. Like he said, no one wants to listen.

  • Spikeygrrl

    Of course non-violent bigotry is permissible in the public square. But it is NOT permissible for bigots to tell everybody else to just bend over and shut up. That, sadly, is the face of the Religious Right today, driving away their natural political allies by refusing to recognize them as allies unless/until they pledge allegiance to a particular brand of theology.

    Until we on the Right put this stupid, immature infighting aside, we will never regain the White House.

    I am TERRIFIED of 2016. Half of us will stay home on Election Day, and 30-40% of the rest of us will be single-issue voters on issues which are, at best, trivial.

    The America we knew and so passionately loved is dying before our eyes. I’m just glad I won’t be alive to hear its Cheyne-Stokes death-rattle.

  • Spikeygrrl

    I’d put Williams at 135 or so, and Sowell right around 150.

    Having been heavily involved in high-IQ associations and activisms for most of my adult life, I’ve learned some snap-tests by which to recognize a fellow “giftie” across a crowded room, or within a few paragraphs of writing.

    You can learn how to do this too. For a decade or so I served on the Board of an international high-IQ study group (which was strongly race realist) with Garth Zietsman, resident of South Africa, International Mensa’s “World’s Smartest Man,” and one of the dearest personal friends I’ve ever been honored to have. (Didn’t I tell ya’ll how much I love being the dumbest person in the room?)

    He wrote a killer checklist by which to identify IQ brackets by behavioral traits, e.g., — “can follow simple instructions” and “reads philosophy for pleasure.” It might still be available on the Internet, but given a title the same as the book he intended to discredit, my search so far has yielded nothing. 😛

    I know it’s preserved in the organization’s archives on Yahoo Groups. If anyone here is seriously interested, I WILL spend the time wading through layers of obsolete access coding to get to it. Which I probably should do anyway, bleah.

    • how about this

      Can you tell us more about how to identify the gifted?

      • Spikeygrrl

        I’ve been looking for the nifty little checklist and will post it when I find it. Thanks for reminding me.

  • Paleoconn

    Walter Williams is our ally in the culture war.