Expanding on Oswald Mosley's repudiation of our ideas about free spech

submitted by Richard_Parker from self.debatealtright

I am trying to articulate why our notions of free speech are wrong headed simplistic, with many of the central , foundational tenets and tracts unable to have foreseen conditions in the modern world. Mosley's quote reads as follows:

The Press will not be free to tell lies. That is not freedom for the people, but a tyranny over their minds and souls. Much humbug is talked on this subject. What is press freedom? In practice it means the right of a dew millionaires to corner newspaper shares on the stock exchange and to voice their own opinions and interests, irrespective of the truth or of the national interest.

Manufacturing consent,.social contagion, herd mentality seem relevant concepts as well.

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]VraiBleuScots Protestant, Ulster Loyalist 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Mosley was (as always) completely correct. Terms like ‘free speech’, just like ‘democracy’ may seem noble but in reality both result in small cliques of liars & charlatans having absolute control over society

Most proponents of free speech are only interested in free speech for people that share their beliefs, just like most proponents of democracy don’t give a damn about the majority opinions of their citizens.

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Most proponents of free speech are only interested in free speech for people that share their beliefs

That is not true. Most proponents of free speech believe in trial by combat of ideas. They may be naive, but that's what they believe, I believe.

[–]Nombre27 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I am trying to articulate why our notions of free speech are wrong headed simplistic

It boils down to whether that speech is being used for good or ill, wrt to the White race. Similar to the goal of fascism being an alignment of the well-being of the state and the people, the same applies to what is protected under "free speech". If you're using your speech to denigrate and destroy the people and the state, then you won't be allowed to say it.

This is why it's utterly hilarious when liberal-types bring up hate speech laws while simultaneously claiming that we live in a White supremacist/dominated/privileged society. If we really did live in such a society then people would be punished for denigrating Whites, but we see the exact opposite where you're only allowed to talk shit about Whites and no other group (save for maybe Asians when they're cast as White adjacent).

The equation boils down to: if it's good for the White race, then it's permitted.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You might want to have a look at Singapore. Some time ago their government made an agreement with the press that they wouldn't talk down the country or government just to sell papers and it's one of the reasons the country became so successful.

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

I love Singapore. I was thinking of writers or thinkers. Closest u can think is Noam Chomsky.

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

I still support free speech. The problem is not the bad actors who abuse it, but the suppression of voices who try to counter it.

A quick example of this is looking at internet culture during the mid 2010s. You could go on Reddit or Twitter and still see plenty of pro-White accounts or spaces. It was only during the latter half of the decade when many of these Social Media Corporations turned their back on

"let people moderate themselves" attitude and begun censoring anything that questioned diversity and equality.

For all its faults, 4chan is basically the last vestige of free speech being practiced on a major website. For every Communist or NeoLiberal brigade, there's also Conservative and Far-Right ones who are free to post in any thread.

[–]Richard_Parker[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks so far. Any other mote mainstream figures enunciate similar ideas?

[–]JuliusCaesar225Nationalist + Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Freedom of speech for personal/individual "speech" is good but not for mass cultural institutions that shape the views and values of society, especially in todays West and its treasonous institutions. Many RWers worship the cult of "free speech" as if every problem today isn't the result of various forms of speech. Why do white people reject their own group and idolize blacks and foreigners? Why do so many whites support mass immigration? This didn't just spontaneously arise in the mind of whites. This is due the ideology that has been promoted through the institutions.