Free speech in the ideal ethnostate?

submitted by beigebaron from self.debatealtright

Since it seems flair is not available yet, I'm someone who typically votes on the left (although not a "leftist" because I'm not trying to vote on the left, just that's where the most reasonable views takes me).

Anyway, I'll just say that I disagree with the banning of r/debatealtright. There's some irony that some believe that defending a democratic society with free speech and equality requires banning the speech of those who disagree.

But that irony also goes both ways. While modern WNs frequently decry their own censorship as a violation of free speech, it's also obvious the fate of dissenters in Nazi Germany or among the Order's ideal society in the Turner Diaries would be far more bleak than mere censorship.

Is that a fair portrayal of what the alt-right wants? In your ideal state what would you do about people who advocate for race-mixing or even go further and advocate for ethnic cleansing of white people in the same way that WNs advocate for ethnic cleansing of minorities in white societies? Like imagine a black Hitler publishing the black version of Mien Kampf with white people taking the role of jews. Would this topic enjoy free speech protection and if not what should the punishment be?

all 4 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anyway, I'll just say that I disagree with the banning of r/debatealtright.

Why not? I know if I was the Jewish supremacists that rule the world through obfuscation I would suppress everyone who exposes my power. If your power relied solely on not getting caught and every time you've been 'found out' throughout history you've been kicked out of power by the people you exploit and oppress why wouldn't you want to protect your power? I understand why they suppress us perfectly fine, we are the only people in the world who even come close to challenging power in the Western World.

If I was in power and I would suppress people that wanted to destroy my power also. I wouldn't do anything about your examples because they would pose absolutely no threat to power, they're just stupid and they only get pushed today because power wants them to be pushed.

[–]sineavec 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In your ideal state what would you do about people who advocate for race-mixing or even go further and advocate for ethnic cleansing of white people in the same way that WNs advocate for ethnic cleansing of minorities in white societies?

Our race is under attack, currently, and it is why we advocate for an ethnostate. So, in an established ethnostate, we would continue to debate policy like we do today, but anything that threatened the survival of the White race would be off the table, not up for discussion. Regarding Europe, it is for Europeans like Africa is for Africans and Asia is for Asians. Europe not being for Europeans would not be up for discussion. This one thing will not be up for discussion. Will there be other things not up for discussion?

Marxism is still influential. The problem with Marxism is Marx. He was a layabout who relied on another man financially to remain the shiftless, head in the clouds man he was. He should have loved his wife and children more than thinking about systems. That is the problem with the Left, they understand systems but not people. It is why they don't understand that it is not an unreasonable demand to say that Europe is for Europeans.

In our ethnostate, two things could change our understanding of Leftism without draconian speech laws. One, education. The elite would pursue philosophy and things like that, and we allow others to go into trades and craftmanship. We will develop masters in philosophy, masters in agriculture, master butchers. This is real equality, they drink from the same cup despite their differences. We will raise up our people and not use education to brainwash them so as to use them for our own ends. Like education is used for by the Left.

The second thing is History is a process where we acquire a higher understanding of ourselves and the world around us. Moral truths are always there, but we have to go through the process of living to understand them. We are going through it now, and perhaps, when we win, we will already have this understanding of leftism and other things to avoid. We will not have free speech in that anything can be advocated, but we will be lacking for nothing, at the same time.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I lean Platonic on these types of issues. A good elite sets the trends in a society and in one way or another -- not necessarily by outright banning of works -- should set the tone of what it is people consume in our society. The simple fact is that most people who might read our ideas aren't actually restricted from doing so by law they're restricted from doing so because the ideas we espouse have been declared taboo by the powerful. That is the most powerful form of 'censorship' conceivable because it's self enforcing. Banning is usually a sign of desperation.

In a healthy society run by healthy people outright censorship might be employed -- I'd ban pornography in a second if given the chance -- at times but it wouldn't be that necessary.

[–]SincereDiscussion 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you picture a WN USA, you can't simply imagine the U.S. with Whites only immigration, no anti-discrimination laws, etc. There is no escaping the fact that we are dissidents, and what we want is pretty much the exact opposite of what the country is like right now. There has to be an institutional revolution as well (re: academia, media, etc.). This obviously necessitates a confrontation of some kind, and in that specific context...no, the idea of 'free speech' isn't going to make any sense. (This goes hand in hand with what literalotherkin said about culture coming from the top down).

These kinds of questions also implicitly rely on the idea that the current system is in any way legitimate. Particularly in the context of free speech, this couldn't be further from the truth. The only way someone can justify this is by making libertarian appeals to the public vs. private distinction. Frankly, actual censorship is more democratic (at least, to the degree that the censorship itself has public support). Compare two scenarios:

  1. The public votes and says "yeah, we don't think you should be able to say x" (where x could be advocating for replacement immigration, pornography, etc.).

  2. Someone at the ADL makes a phone call to someone at Amazon and gets a bunch of books removed.

If you're a good goy libertarian, the former is tyranny and the latter is merely the 'free market' at work, but most people here will recognize that it's a farce. Power is power. In practice, I cannot think of anything that we would have to censor. Liberal ideas are not a threat without institutional backing. In an 'ideal state', they would not have institutional backing. Censorship is irrelevant at that point except to the extent that it could be socially desirable (such as banning pornography) -- in contrast to the current system, where censorship is necessary in order for the system to exist.

For example, consider 'anti-racism'. We have to constantly be told about how evil racism is, starting with indoctrination at an early age; this is reinforced throughout our culture (TV, movies, advertising, etc.); we have laws forcing people into non-consensual interactions with nonwhites (anti-discrimination laws) and unjustly promoting them (Affirmative Action/disparate impact and the 80% rule)...and this still isn't enough -- political correctness and censorship are used to prevent any challenges to this system.

Compare that to an ideal WN state...the idea that we would need anywhere near the level of propaganda, coercion, and censorship is downright laughable. We wouldn't need to constantly remind people that it's okay to be proud of your ancestors and feel more comfortable around people of your own race or "men are men and women are women". Same thing with race and IQ, the JQ etc.

The black Hitler question is similarly difficult to parse for several reasons.

  1. When a country is run by Jews, they do not do it openly as Jews. They act on their own ethnic interests while making universal moral appeals. If Whites were in charge, there would be no ambiguity about this fact. It would be run by Whites for Whites. Maybe I'm taking this way too literally, but imagining a black equivalent to White anti-semitism just doesn't make any sense. What would blacks be riled up about? "We are a minority and we have less power than the majority". Yeah, and? The actual complaints about racism would simply be laughed off, if they even existed. (Because I'm assuming there would be some kind of separation involved).

  2. Similar to what I wrote above, it also doesn't take into account institutional/cultural power in a WN country. Unlike now, blacks wouldn't be relentlessly incited to hate and resent Whites. While there would always be some envy, it wouldn't be weaponized in the way it is now. Some conflict is unavoidable, but much of it would be taken care of by separation (or at least an end to forced integration) and a vastly different cultural environment.

  3. Again, keeping in mind institutional (including academia and media) power in a WN country, but taking the question less literally...a black Hitler would be either completely irrelevant or, at best, a pretext for further separation or even repatriation. There would be no reason to censor or otherwise suppress him. If anything, there would be an incentive to artificially prop him up!