Why Free Speech Is the Last Refuge and the Goal of The Left is to Silence You!


#1

No words are necessary.


#2

There is a strong tendency for those who need safe spaces, who need the ability to retreat where we Deplorables aren’t welcome, once they’ve had their hugs in their echo chambers, to mobilize themselves to try to make sure none of the rest of us has any place we can feel free of their influences, no place for us.

As I wrote in another thread recently: having with their Brave New World reduced everything to trivialities they emerge with fake new profundities, like bring Woke, so that unlike the people in 1984 who spent time everyday screaming at the outsider, the foreign, the Left now spends everyday screaming at the native and their neighbor.


#3

Wow… you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a story-book, man.


#4

I know this is just my opinion but… I disagree with that quote in your OP link.

The Left’s main goal…is controlling what you do. And their primary tool is to control what you think. And THAT is accomplished by controlling what you experience, read, see, hear, feel…

I’ve posted the reasoning behind this before but it’s somewhat lengthy and goes back to Locke, the “tabula rasa”, and Helvétius. My understanding comes from Richard Pipes’ expositions on the intelligentsia during the Russian revolution and what it was that influenced them to take the side that they did. This is from his larger volume on the Russian Revolution. It is 100% correct today for describing the philosophical thought behind the progressive narrative that is sent from the hive to all the prog drones. It makes clear WHY the progs do not want opposing opinions even heard… even if they themselves do not know why they are told to block opposing thoughts. Now you can see why progs are the foremost proponents of the idea of “thought crimes”.

Excerpt from Pipes’ Book

The theory of innate ideas dominated European thought in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The political implications of this theory were distinctly conservative: the immutability of human nature posited the immutability of man’s behavior and the permanence of his political and social institutions.
Bacon already had expressed doubts about innate ideas, since they did not fit his empirical methodology, and hinted that knowledge derived from the senses. But the principal assault on the theory of innate ideas was undertaken bv John Locke in 1690 in his Essay on Human Understanding, Locke dismissed the whole concept and argued that all ideas without exception derived from sensory experience. The human mind was like a “dark room” into which the sensations of sight, smell, touch, and hearing threw the only shafts of light.
By reflecting on these sensations, the mind formed ideas. According to Locke, thinking was an entirely involuntary process: man could no more reject or change the ideas which the senses generated in his mind than a mirror can “refuse, alter, or obliterate the images or ideas which objects set before it do therein produce,” The denial of free will, which followed from Locke’s theory of cognition, was to be a major factor in its popularity, since it is only by eliminating free will that man could be made the subiect of scientific inquiry. For several decades after its appearance, the influence of Locke’s Essay was confined to academic circles. It was the French philosophe Claude Helvétius who, in his anonymously published De l’Esprit (1758), first drew political consequences from Locke’s theory of knowledge, with results that have never been adequately recognized.

It is known that Helvétius studied intensely the philosophical writings of Locke and was deeply affected by them. He accepted as proven Locke’s contention that all ideas were the product of sensations and all knowledge the result of man’s ability, through reflection on sensory data, to grasp the differences and similarities that are the basis of thought. He denied as categorically as did Locke man’s ability to direct thinking or the actions resulting from it: for Helvétius, his biographer says, "a philosophical treatise on liberty was a treatise on effects without a cause. Moral notions derived exclusively from man’s experience with the sensations of pain and pleasure, People thus were neither “good” nor “bad”: they merely acted, involuntarily and mechanically, in their self-interest, which dictated the avoidance of pain and the enhancement of pleasure.

Up to this point, Helvétius said nothing that had not been said previously by Locke and his French followers. But then he made a startling leap from philosophy into politics. From the premise that all knowledge and all values were by-products of sensory experience he drew the inference that by controlling the data that the senses fed to the mind-that is by appropriately shaping man’s environment-it was possible to determine what he thought and how he behaved. Since, according to Locke, the formulation of ideas was wholly involuntary and entirely shaped by physical sensations, it followed that if man were subiected to impressions that made for virtue, he could be made virtuous through no act of his own will.
This idea provides the key to the creation of perfectly virtuous human beings -required are only appropriate external influences. Helvétius called the process of molding men “education,”…

I dont take it personally if some dont buy into this. But I think Pipes was brilliant.


#5

I don’t know that people call themselves “conservative” actually care about free speech. The minute someone says something bad about Israel the majority of you “conservatives” turn into foaming at the mouth lunatics demanding censorship and a ban on hate speech. It’s the most bizarre shit I have ever seen.


#6

Awwww. :cry: …


#7

That’s all you got? :ok_hand:


#8

What the heck is up with Israel and people who are so against them.

I honestly don’t get it.

Jeeze, put your energy towards defending our border, the likes of AOC, the democrats and the green deal. Or perhaps when we all become slaves to the elite, you’ll wonder what the heck your beef was with Jews anyway.


#9

I guess the same could be said for people who so blindly support Israel.


#10

Well then. Based upon your cogent response, you can count me in as one who “blindly” supports Israel. I have no animus towards Israel or Jews.

I actually have no animus towards any group of people their political or religious affiliation. That is, until they overstep on our constitution or our laws.


#11

They are either paid Zionist shills or Christian zionists / evangelical neo-cons.

No need to discuss the motives of the Zionist shills. But, for the Christian zionists and the evangelical neo-cons…did they forget that Jewish leadership and its followers killed Christ? Do they not realize the Jews are behind all the ideas they oppose (gay marriage, abortion, drug legalization and communism)? They are ridiculous group of people but I do wonder…are they being good goys or are they just brain dead manipulated goys?


#12

You are so close to understanding the JQ but it’s like there is a missing piece in your mind that won’t allow you to connect the two pieces together. A little bit of independent research and you will get there. Once you see it - you never unsee it.


#13

Yep. You people have tried to convince conservatives that they should do something else to live up to their name. You dont understand. There are people who do what they think is right. They get named something or other. And maybe they call themselves by that name for convenience. But it is just a name and it is nothing compared to one’s inner sense of right and wrong. So you may influence the weak among us to change their choices and behavior to conform to the archetypal “conservative” but those who are true to ourselves will simply tell you that you will have more luck changing what “conservative” means so as to better represent who we are. Or call us by another name. It makes no difference to me.


#14

Free speech, unless some Zionist is offended. So not free, but slave approved speech. Welcome to the world of being a Good Goy.


#15

Ahh… you speak of a few. I dont want to censor your nonsense. So… BAM… your post fails.


#16

BAM indeed - but you obviously understand my point. I’m just as American as you, I wouldn’t want you silenced for any reason even though you disagree with me on nearly everything. Unfortunately, many who proclaim to be champions of free speech are actively working to suppress speech and even put people in jail for speech they don’t like.


#17

It’s not just that though. I’ve been on the internet since 1995. From 1995 to 2012 the internet was a lot of fun. It was a realm for us nerds to let loose since the internet was “for geeks.” We knew how to deal with bullies and keyboard commandos. Then the iPhone was invented and since then it’s been full of left wing beta losers crying about everything.


#18

enjoy … and despair…


#19

You guys all need to lighten up. Here, sit back and chill.


#20

I don’t necessarily disagree with that, only because there are questionable things in regards to the role Israel has played in our ME foreign policy. So yes scrutiny is warranted on that front, however on the other front, they are they only democracy in the ME that is a US ally and thus have provided valuable intel for US interest in the region. For me personally its conflicting, because I am just being honest in terms of the shady shit they have done, and the good stuff that they do. Syria is one example that has me conflicted on several fronts. At the end of the day, I still support Israel but the aid at US tax payer’s expense is what I would question most. On the latter, at least they are not working against certain interests of the US like Pakistan was and we were giving them aid which ended last year, and rightfully so. I think Israel deserves vetting just like any other country we do business with and shouldn’t get a blind pass.