I have said many times in the past that all education is indoctrination and all law is the imposition of morality: it is just a debate over what dogmas and morality will be imposed. The Left and the Libertarians reject this with scorn and even most on the Right would be uncomfortable in saying it, but it is nevertheless true. Something will always be imparted to the rising generation. We can see this right before our eyes when we see polls showing something like 25% of youngsters say they are something other than straight. The idea that a fourth of humanity would not be biologically geared towards reproduction is both theologically and biologically absurd, but the kids say they are. And they say this because they’ve been told to say this. Like all young people, they want to know what to say and do in order to be accepted into society and the sure-fire pathway to acceptance these days is to be a weirdo…and so weirdo they are.
But there is a follow-on to both my assertions that I’ve only tangentially brought up before: and that is there is always censorship to defend the reigning dogma. I’ve hinted as this before when I’ve discussed things like the Inquisition and pointed out that it wasn’t set up to prevent thought and development, but to ensure that thought and development went in the right direction. Most people these days would condemn such an idea but such it was, and something like it is necessary in any society. These days the reigning orthodoxy is not defended by learned men backed up by the rack but, instead, is defended by ideological gatekeepers backed up by social ostracism. But it all works out the same: heresy is rooted out and those who transgress are punished. With today, in my view, being worse than the Inquisition because our current gatekeepers are not only determined to prevent thought and development but, indeed, to ensure that various obvious falsehoods are asserted by society. At least Torquemada was trying to defend something true; the modern Inquisitors are determined to defend something false. But the main point here is that there is always a mechanism in society to hound those who don’t conform to the reigning orthodoxy.
This is why when I see current debates about free speech I do believe that a lot of people are missing a crucial aspect of it. This is especially true on the Right which almost universally adheres to Voltaire’s “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Perhaps Voltaire really would have (he was never put to the test), but most people won’t really. It is philosophical boilerplate. But the attitude underlying it has been used to push our civilization to the brink of extinction. Thinking it wise, we’ve allowed all manner of false, evil and downright anti-human speech to be made. And made by people who are bound and determined to exterminate everyone who disagrees with them. Most importantly, those who have imposed the current reigning orthodoxy don’t hold to Voltaire’s dictum for a minute – and they are now busily enforcing their speech codes on us.
There are, after all, things we already can’t say in public. Things we’ll only say in private, quietly and only around people we trust absolutely. And year by year the things we won’t say in public grow – because the new Inquisitors are always listening, always ready to destroy the next person who states a heresy. Don’t be too harsh with them on it. When our views dominated, to even say “damn” in a movie was a shock. Our civilization at its peak had a very strict set of rules of behavior and speech and they were enforced by a mixture of law and custom. We were told (or, actually, mostly told ourselves) that we could dispense, one by one, with these laws and customs and that we would somehow still retain our civilization. We have now found out how false that notion was…and our backs are against the wall as the ideas we let lose are getting ready to destroy us.
To be sure, those who wrote the First Amendment lived during the peak of our civilization. When they wrote those words “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” they weren’t stupid or naive. They just didn’t realize – couldn’t realize – that later generations would assume that the words meant there were no rules. These were educated, responsible men; they were sure that the First Amendment would only secure the right to say things within the rules. De Sade lived when the Constitution was being written and he was writing his vile works…I am absolutely confident that Madison would have led the charge against anyone advocating de Sade’s ideology. In the end, we allowed de Sade and his heirs free reign. How is that working out for us?
There are certain things which must be in order for a civilization to survive. For instance, the Albigensians of the 13th century held that physical reality is evil. This in stark contrast to the orthodox Christian view which asserts that God called His creation good and, of course, became incarnate. In our modern mind we would allow the Albigensians to propagate their ideas freely on grounds of who are we to say who is truly right? Those back in the 13th century didn’t and this is held as a sin against them. But the reason they exterminated the Albigensians wasn’t to stop people from thinking, but to prevent a monster from growing all powerful. A society based on the belief that matter is evil is a very different society than the Christian. It despises life and seeks only the end of all things. On balance, the people then preferred an explicable world ruled by God and eventually to be redeemed by Him.
Were they right? Well, lets take another case: Islam. Suppose it had totally triumphed instead of being fought tooth and nail for centuries. What then? Well, just take a look at the Muslim world in, say, 1823: no real advancement since it had emerged in the 7th century. Ancient nations of once-great prosperity reduced to poverty. A completely stagnant society; once the scourge of Christendom and now the plaything of European buccaneers. The Muslim worldview is different from the Christian. It is much more gloomy; deterministic and, because of this, greedily materialistic…but it is a greed only of taking and hoarding…not the materialistic greed of the Calvinists who at least asserted that one had to build.
The point here is that if you want what you have, you must defend it. If you don’t defend it, then it will be replaced by something else which will then exterminate what you have. It can’t freely compete with other world views; it must triumph, or die. As much freedom as you want, as much as you, personally, want to think and say what you want, there must be a limit. And an enforced limit. Some things that are just outside the pale and may not be openly advocated for in the public square. In short, no matter how much freedom you want, you’re going to need some censorship…just as you’ll have to use law and custom to ensure your dogmas are transmitted in the schools.
Do keep in mind that there is no correct answer. No Euclidean certainty. You’re dealing with human beings so things don’t work like that. What you will determine tolerable is a prudential judgement and may vary over time. But what must be is the hard and fast rules: what you cannot do, no matter what. To give an example: we know that Nazi ideology is evil and has no merit whatsoever. It should, then, be illegal to propagate it. If not in law, then in custom. And, of course, overt adherence to Nazism is banned in our society – you can almost ensure your social ostracism if you proclaim your adherence to Nazism. You might still have some Nazi friends, but forget a career in most avenues and be prepared for routine harassment. Do you see what I’m saying?
Just as the Nazis would arrest us all if they were given power so, too, will what we currently call the Left. The rising reigning orthodoxy. The thing which is already causing us to self-censor and now increasingly demands we overtly proclaim our support for. They don’t have any truck with the idea that speech should really be free. They believe you should only be free to say what they find acceptable. Spoiler: you aren’t acceptable. Eventually you will be squashed.
Unless you squash them, first.
This is what I mean when I talk of us using power to destroy the Left. It is an effort to place their ideas beyond the pale. When I say things like “confiscate their money” that is just a means to an end – a way to get them to stop saying things which undermine civilization. But do note that I go on to say things like, “use their money to educate the rising generation in our views.” I’m not just trying to switch my power for theirs – I’m really in the business of stamping out heresy. Of getting rid of those who assert things which are at defiance of what I consider basic, human decency.
As we brace ourselves for this battle for our civilization it is important that we start to think about things. To really determine who we are, what we believe and what we want at the end of the fight. Just opposing the Left isn’t good enough. It needs to be replaced. What will we replace it with? What will we do to prevent a repeat? What ideas will have a social and legal ban imposed?
And we must do this; because it is the only way we survive.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.