I searched for a thread on the topic of Free Speech and I couldn't find one that discussed it as such, but only tangentially – mostly related to the supression of traditionalist ideas (a large amount of which are promoted by Neomasculinity). I found that odd, given it's such a hot topic, due to the aforementioned supression of certain ideas – and in particular, ours. The discussion came to mind as I am on Gab after being banned from mainstream platforms and seeing how a large part of its users seem to think of free speech as the greatest value a society should hold, and perhaps even a political stance in itself.
I am defining it in a political way, of which the First Amendment to the US Constitution seems to be the greatest representation, meaning the government shall make no law restricting freedom of expression by citizens or institutions (the Press, etc).
I think that given the situation we face in the West, we tend to rally around freedom of speech because we are the ones being silenced – and a lot of us end up defending freedom of speech as a concept because of this, without contemplating the implications.
In my view, an organized society will always have to supress certain ideas. This is because such a society is organized around an ideology or religion, and must supress discussion of its basic tenets if it is to remain the status quo. Whether this ideology or religion is destructive and imoral is beside the point. There has been no organized society that allowed unlimited free speech (and especially within the context of modern technology and the fast spread of ideas), and remained that society.
The US, being the greatest example of this governmental provision, is also the greatest example of how it was used to subvert the very nature of the system, by slowly transforming the Constitutional Republic into a Mass Democractic enterprise, and spreading all ideas contrary to the founding of the country. So if traditionalist ideas are ever to enform a society again, that society will have to be ruthless against ideas that are contrary to it. If it isn't, then we'll see the slow subversion that we observed already. And as we know now, leftists will not stop when they achieve power. They will do what every sane power does, and try to supress discussions of its dogmas.
There is a quote from the great Portuguese dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar that I really like which highlights the idea perfectly:
«We do not discuss God and virtue. We do not discuss the homeland and its history. We do not discuss authority and its prestige. We do not discuss the family and its morality. We do not discuss the glory of work and their duty.»
Salazar's regime was an openly Catholic, traditionalist, nationalist, anti-communist and anti-capitalist. In order to preserve the character of the regime (and the country) from corrosive progressive ideas, he had to supress certain discussions – certainly within official institutions (press, academia, etc).
If you allow discussion of God and Virtue, it eventually leads to moral relativism. The discussion of the homeland and its history degenerates in the end of national autonomy and sovereignty. If you discuss authority it puts in question all hierarchy and allows all who must obey to rebel against all who should be obeyed (wives against husbands, children against parents, students against teachers, etc). If you allow the discussion of the family and its morality, all non-traditional ideas of family become valid, including sodomite 'relations' and single motherhood. And if you discuss the glory of work and its duty you open the door for the destructive effects of welfare to communities and individuals, and also to enrichment through usurious practices.
From the moment these things can be discussed, they can be questioned. If they can be questioned, they are not absolute. And if they are not absolute, they can be replaced. This is essentially a short sumary of the fall of traditionalist ideas within Western societies.
So for this reason, I think traditionalists should fight for the right to spread these ideas within the current environment. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that free speech in itself is an end, but merely a means.
Obviously there are many libertarians and non-traditionalists within this forum, so I am curious to hear your thoughts on this, and hopefully get a healthy discussion on the absoluteness and usefulness of being politically granted the right to say and publish whatever idea you deem fit.
I am defining it in a political way, of which the First Amendment to the US Constitution seems to be the greatest representation, meaning the government shall make no law restricting freedom of expression by citizens or institutions (the Press, etc).
I think that given the situation we face in the West, we tend to rally around freedom of speech because we are the ones being silenced – and a lot of us end up defending freedom of speech as a concept because of this, without contemplating the implications.
In my view, an organized society will always have to supress certain ideas. This is because such a society is organized around an ideology or religion, and must supress discussion of its basic tenets if it is to remain the status quo. Whether this ideology or religion is destructive and imoral is beside the point. There has been no organized society that allowed unlimited free speech (and especially within the context of modern technology and the fast spread of ideas), and remained that society.
The US, being the greatest example of this governmental provision, is also the greatest example of how it was used to subvert the very nature of the system, by slowly transforming the Constitutional Republic into a Mass Democractic enterprise, and spreading all ideas contrary to the founding of the country. So if traditionalist ideas are ever to enform a society again, that society will have to be ruthless against ideas that are contrary to it. If it isn't, then we'll see the slow subversion that we observed already. And as we know now, leftists will not stop when they achieve power. They will do what every sane power does, and try to supress discussions of its dogmas.
There is a quote from the great Portuguese dictator, António de Oliveira Salazar that I really like which highlights the idea perfectly:
«We do not discuss God and virtue. We do not discuss the homeland and its history. We do not discuss authority and its prestige. We do not discuss the family and its morality. We do not discuss the glory of work and their duty.»
Salazar's regime was an openly Catholic, traditionalist, nationalist, anti-communist and anti-capitalist. In order to preserve the character of the regime (and the country) from corrosive progressive ideas, he had to supress certain discussions – certainly within official institutions (press, academia, etc).
If you allow discussion of God and Virtue, it eventually leads to moral relativism. The discussion of the homeland and its history degenerates in the end of national autonomy and sovereignty. If you discuss authority it puts in question all hierarchy and allows all who must obey to rebel against all who should be obeyed (wives against husbands, children against parents, students against teachers, etc). If you allow the discussion of the family and its morality, all non-traditional ideas of family become valid, including sodomite 'relations' and single motherhood. And if you discuss the glory of work and its duty you open the door for the destructive effects of welfare to communities and individuals, and also to enrichment through usurious practices.
From the moment these things can be discussed, they can be questioned. If they can be questioned, they are not absolute. And if they are not absolute, they can be replaced. This is essentially a short sumary of the fall of traditionalist ideas within Western societies.
So for this reason, I think traditionalists should fight for the right to spread these ideas within the current environment. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that free speech in itself is an end, but merely a means.
Obviously there are many libertarians and non-traditionalists within this forum, so I am curious to hear your thoughts on this, and hopefully get a healthy discussion on the absoluteness and usefulness of being politically granted the right to say and publish whatever idea you deem fit.