What Free Speech?

Does anyone you know really believe in free speech?  By that I mean as an applied philosophy, rather than just as an intellectual concept.  I'm not sure I know anyone who does.  Let's consider this for a moment.  The term "free speech" has been bantered about quite a bit recently, and as most terms in the political lexicon, its meaning becomes more ambiguous with each utterance.  It's being defined by different factions in different ways, so how do we know what we're talking about when we debate the concept of "free speech?"

Does free speech include vile, invective or disgusting language?  Or perhaps profane rants and calls for violence?  How about such no-no's as advocating death or annihilation?  Or maybe just biases and hate of one group by another?  Is any of that free speech?  Does free speech in a democratic and free society allow for any or all of those things?  I think it does.  And it should.

The immediate reaction most will have to that pronouncement is that we can't shout "fire!" in a crowded theater.  Why?  The nature of free speech is that one can express oneself fully and completely, and that's an admirable concept.  But there is no provision that someone else be protected from any reaction to that speech whatsoever, including outrage, offense, disgust or even terror.  So it would seem - in the purest sense of the concept - that one has the right to express oneself through the freedom of speech, but others are in no way obligated to listen.  

I would submit that any abridgement of pure and unadulterated free speech is a form of censorship.   Here's why.  The notion that speech - of any kind, but particularity political speech - should be moderated is, to me, utter nonsense.  Who is it who moderates?  What moral authority do moderators have to quell opinions, or even biases and phobias?  Have the moderators no opinions, preferences or biases of their own?  And as such, why do those opinions trump my own?   You can see how easily censorship rears its ugly head at the very instance of speech moderation.  A most notable example is the less-than-subtle censorship in the form of anti-conservative biases prevalent in the mainstream media.

The Internet has changed the way we act as a society in many ways.  Opinions are sent though cyberspace in an instant, and reactions are returned just as fast.  Sensitive souls - yes, I mean snowflakes - may take umbrage or offense, and demand that "something be done" about all that opinionatin' goin' on.  Rather than ignore the offending remark, they instead seek censorship of the offender by some higher authority.  That'll show 'em.  Even Facebook has twisted itself into a moral and legal pretzel in trying to moderate "hate speech" among its now two billion-plus users.  But it's a waste of effort, because hate speech is free speech.

Should Black Lives Matter be allowed to call all white people racists and should be killed?  Should the sharia supremacists be allowed to call for the destruction of all non-Islamic civilizations?  Should skinheads be allowed to denounce homosexuals and Jews?  Should we allow feminists to advocate the breakup of the traditional nuclear family?  Haters gonna hate.  So what?  The answer, in a democratic and free society, is clearly yes for all of these.  But when rhetoric is acted upon, the law has a legal and  moral obligation to respond.  One may say what one wants, but actions are still guided by laws and have consequence.

Some of us grew up in a time when "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me" was more than a just schoolyard rhyme.  It was, and still is, a philosophy which is sorely needed today.  So get over being offended.  Say what you will.  Ignore what you dislike.  But don't censor "them," for "they" might just censor you.  If one takes exception to this across-the-board approach to freedom of all speech, however offensive or agitating it may be, then one doesn't truly believe in freedom of speech.  

And that, by definition, is censorship.

Fake News, Fake Terror

When the latest "terrorist involved" news came from London yesterday, I was skeptical.  Let me be even more frank:  I didn't buy it for a nanosecond.  The narrative - that is, the story - is that a middle aged white man drove his van into a crowd of Muslims, killing one and injuring ten.  It's plausible, no?  It certainly is when one considers that there would surely be a "backlash" occurring against all these savage killings of innocents at the hands of Islamists.  The MSM has been salivating for an instance in which normal folks may wantonly kill some random Muslims, just for, well, because they're Muslims.  And that is exactly the narrative that the media mafia is foistering on us.

And note that London has a Muslim mayor

Let us look at this fake story with a jaundiced eye.  The van attack on London Bridge last week, where crazed Islamists randomly ran down innocent Londoners and tourists, driving into them at a relatively fast speed, and then leaped from the assault vehicle and started slashing the crowd with their knives.  These were Muslims intent on killing and aiming as many people as possible.

In contrast, let's compare that act of terrorism on London Bridge a week ago, with the fake story of Muslims run down at the mosque yesterday.  First, the run down occurred a good distance form the mosque, across several streets and beyond a major highway artery overpass, despite the insinuation of the media mafia.  Second, the van was driving very slowly, according to early witness reports, people were actually stepping in the way of the vehicle, and the only fatality was a poor individual who was having a medical situation prior to any threat from the driver.  Third, and most amazingly, is the fact that the Finsbury Park mosque's imam just happened to be at the site at the time of the incident, and is now being painted as a hero for stopping the crowd from killing the driver, now identified as 47 year old Darren Osbourne.  This very mosque, by the way, recently was under investigation for its teaching of terrorism and inciting terrorist attacks, and its previous imam was arrested and incarcerated on terrorist charges.  The UK's big three newspapers have all dedicated extensive ink on this fake story, and it's embarrassing to read their over the top gushing praise for this so-called "hero" imam.  

This story is clearly fabricated attempting to create a sense of moral equivalence to deny civilization the moral high ground regarding the use of terror. This tatic has been tried and failed before - Dylan Roof and Tim McVeigh come to mind - but the radical left and the media mafia are betting the farm on this one, you can be sure.  Watch the media mafia in the next few days.  We'll see more and more pro-Islamist stories, complete with  personable imams, essentially saying, "See, they do it to us, too.  And we're not so bad."

But of course we - that is, civilized people and advanced societies - don't engage in terror tactics.  But Muslims do.  In fact, during the so-called holy month of Ramadan this year, fatalities during this holiest month for Muslims this year, stand at 1,155.  This is nearly triple the 421 deaths that took place during the entire Ramadan period last year.  And Ramadan doesn't end for another six days.  And  so far in 2017, crazed Islamists have conducted 583 attacks, and killed 3,965 people according to storymaps.com.  But the media mafia will use this fake story to beat readers over the head with the false notion that Muslims are victims of civilized non-Muslim terror.  They aren't.

But actually, subjecting them to the same treatment to which they've subjected us for the last 1,400 years may be an excellent idea.  Maybe we should try it.

But of course, we won't.  You see, we're civilized.

E Pluribus Unum, My Friends. Sine Qua Non

This famous quote, uttered by Andrew Jackson on the occasion of receiving his honorary doctorate from Harvard, can be translated to "Of many, one, my friends, without which, nothing."  He was commenting in the fact that but for unity, the United States would be nothing.  Lofty words, to be sure.  But two centuries later, we see the affect of disunity.  We see disrespect, divisiveness, unbridled rage, and little if any personal responsibility.  Why?

Interesting, isn't it, how the culture of the United States has so drastically been eroded in the last six decades?  There's ample evidence to support that much blame for this demise can be laid at the feet of our more than permissive society.  Political correctness is the self censorship that we as a society impose upon ourselves. Seeking to be fair and balanced in our thoughts and deeds, we lie to ourselves about the realities of the world, just to make us feel better about ourselves.  And after years of this deceit taking root and blossoming in the societal fabric, we now are beginning to see what it has wrought. And what it has wrought is that our progeny - in fact, our very culture - is unfamiliar with reality.  We ignore violence where it exists, and conjure violence where it does not.

And what do we get?  Invading Islamists seeking to annihilate western thought are not only not seen as an existential threat, but are welcomed and supported by those it seeks to kill.  And misguided souls who are feed continuous daily portions of the hate-filled and divisive rhetoric emanating from the radical left's media propaganda machine pick up arms and attempt to kill duly elected government representatives.  The media mafia is alive and well, and it does a good job of distorting reality.  Good is bad, bad is good.

And that Orwellian contradiction is echoed by popular culture as well.  By that I refer to the wanton violence found in certain video games, in the vile and disgusting lyrics of so-called rap music, as well as in the vulgarity and depravity oozing from Hollywood's motion pictures.  Not limited to the vile language and blood and gore that constitutes many films, but including the stupid and vapid plot lines of many of the feel-good films recently, all constitute an unstoppable onslaught on what used to be courteous and polite behavior.  Through these outlets, we are taught to be not gentle men and women, but rather to be crude, coarse, rude and violent.  And permissiveness finds its way into parenting, as well, and that adds to the demise of a gentle culture.  Gentleness comes from understanding and taking personal responsibility; of behaving in such a way that the enables the better man to live under the immutable laws of cause and effect, and of action and consequence, and that leads to the consideration of others.  That's how many of us were brought up.  We learned it from our parents, who demonstrated gentility in act and in deed.  But Gen X-ers, and Gen Y-ers and millennials may not recognize gentility as a moral foundation.  They, in many cases, may live under an I'm-right-the-hell-with-you attitude.  The God of Self.  That's the opposite of tolerance and civility.  And for eight years, our cultural fabric has been infused with this sort of "us and them" ideology, resulting in the demise of civility.

So it's no wonder that some yahoo, saturated to overflowing with anti-American, anti-self responsibility rhetoric from radical left wing sources, finally takes up arms and shoots some congressmen.  He vents his rage on folks who are not his enemies in a real world sense, but to him, brainwashed by overdosing on years of hateful, divisive discourse, they are.  E pluribus unum to him becomes non sunt mei: They are not me.  From unity to selfishness.   At the end of the day, all it got him was infamy - and dead.

But what to do?  We all know as a nation we are divided.  Non sunt mei can be our new unofficial national motto. The radical left has been intent on America's destruction since even before the end of WWII, and perhaps their labor is paying off for them.  Real Americans are gentle in behavior, and are slow to take offense, to take up arms.  But if this non sunt mei ideology becomes as irreversible as religious dogma, and a national unity cannot be achieved,  then we've lost the nation, and an actual civil war will surely occur.  

Should that happen it would prove Andrew Jackson right all along. "Of many, one, my friends, without which, nothing."  But for unity, the United States is nothing.  

Unity:  Do we have it still?

Normandy Forgotten?

June 6, 1944.  D-Day.  On that day allied forces of mostly Americans and Britons stormed the beaches at Normandy, France.  It was a bold and costly onslaught whose mission was to push German forces back from the coast, and ultimately to liberate Paris.  It worked.  It began a series of events that would be seen as a turning point in the war in Europe.

The bravery of those men who rushed the beach in the face of intense and murderous machine gun and mortar fire cannot be understated.  They were scared beyond comprehension, but put the mission ahead of self.  Many never made the beach; and many never made it off the beach.  A handful managed to scale the cliffs and neutralized the German resistance.  And thos men went on inland to change the course of the war.

Many have said that the college educated, effeminate pajama boys of today could not - and would not - engage an enemy within that context of intense combat.  I'm not willing to go that far.  I personally know several millennial men who serve the country today in Special Operations, and I can attest that the warrior culture is very much alive and well in today's military.

Although D-Day happened seventy-three years ago, it behooves us to always remember the will, resolution and sacrifice demonstrated on that morning.  Unfortunately, not many of the media considers it news worthy anymore.  That's a shame.  Thankfully several great movies honor that day, including but not limited to The Longest Day, Saving Private Ryan, and Band of Brothers.  These and others are well worth watching.

Just as the military learned that the tried and true battlefield tactics of yesteryear, and I'm referring to the long charge against entrenched defenses here, is warfare of another time.  Think Picket's Charge at Gettysburg or Lord Cardigan's Light Calvary charge in the Crimea some nine years earlier, for instance,  Hopefully it's unlikely that we'll see massive onslaughts such as the Normandy invasion, or the assault on Iwo Jima in future conflicts.  Warfare has changed, and tactics and technology prevent the need.  And that's a good thing.  But the warrior mindset still exists in American men and women, and the pajama boys and the modern castrati need not apply.

D-Day left us a legacy, and that in part is that bravery, will and valor mean something, and are valuable and desirable virtues to possess.  And to our current generation of lazy, self absorbed and shallow adult children, take note.

If you won't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.

Falling Down On London Bridge

London's Muhammadan Mayor Khan apparently got it right just two weeks ago when, in response to the slaughter of children at the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, he advised Britons to just get used to Muslims killing people as a matter of course of living in big cities.  So yesterday more innocent people were killed as a matter of course of living in big cities.  Sounds insane, doesn't it?  That's because it is insane. Or just plain evil, perhaps.  

But what does the west do?  Candlelight vigils.  Teddy bears.  An appeal to just get along.  To coexist.  Intellectual giant Bette Midler, flush with being so enlightened, tweeted "More sorrow and grief at the hands of madmen in London. Men and religion are worthless."  What does that even mean?  Many of those arrested yesterday were women jihadists in the terror cell network.   Prime Minister Theresa May said  that the national threat level remains at “Severe,” meaning a terrorist attack is “highly likely.”  That means more are certain to be killed.  Yet no matter the facts, Bette knows who's really to blame for all this mayhem.  It's Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists with penises.  But that's the mindset of those on the enlightened left.  And after all, it's just what we have to put up with when living in big cities.

Butt face of evil

Apart from the crazed left's inane judgmental commentary on social media, the governments themselves are themselves, to turn a phrase, worthless.  London police have named two of the three London Bridge attackers, confirming one as a well known Islamist radical. Khuram Shazad Butt, 27, was a British citizen born in Pakistan. He was known to police and MI5, was under investigation since 2015, and was linked to notorious hate preacher Anjem Choudary’s extremist network,  Kinda like the United States' own terrorist, the Kenyan, and his links to notorious hate preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright. 

 

In New York's Times Square last week, just 16 years after Muslims brought down the Twin Towers and killing thousands in the process, a mob of Muslim terrorists-in-waiting took over a couple of streets, lifted their derrieres to the sky, blocking traffic and generally mocking Americans.  They might be thinking, "See, we can take down your capitalist symbols, and flaunt our condescension right in your face, and you're too afraid of us to do a thing about it."  As bullies will do.  And given the response to this outrage by sanctuary cities, they're probably right.

 

But keep it up, jihadists.  Americans are noted for their slow burn.  They'll take it, and then take some more, always attempting to avoid a conflict.  Benefit of the doubt.  Recognizing cultural nuances.  But when that burn gets white hot, there will be an instant and overwhelming slap down.  And there won't be any moaning about "religion of peace", or any differentiating between one flavor of Muslim and another.  When that moment comes, and it will come as these savages hope it will, there will be a final solution.  You read that right.  A final solution.  Be advised.  The average American is well armed, well trained, vigilant and resolute.  And we would be honored to help each and every Islamic cultist reach their eternal reward.

And after that burn subsides, the 7th century political ideological cult will exist no more, and then there may be peace upon the Earth.