Category Archives: Rhetoric

Freedom of speech today

Oppression of freedom of speech comes in many forms. The most overt form arises when dictators control the flow of information and silence all dissenting voices. Countries like Saudi Arabia are prime examples.

However, more covert mechanisms of controlling freedom of speech and freedom of thought also exist. Those in power utilize more subtle and hidden forms of oppression in wealthy Western countries where the populace is more likely to stage a successful revolution.

Conspiracy theory

Of all the means of silencing dissenting voices, none have ever proven so fruitful as the term “conspiracy theory”. These two words have an uncanny, almost supernatural ability to shut down all intelligent discourse and rational conversation on almost any topic. All you have to do is mention a simple fact – say, for example, that jet fuel can’t melt steel beams or collapse an entire high-rise building at free-fall speed – and most people will slap the conspiracy theorist label on you.

What’s remarkable is the hypocrisy of it all. You don’t even have to suggest that a conspiracy exists to be called this pejorative term. And yet those who will label you as such in the style of a fifth-grade bully fail to see that they are the ones speaking of conspiracy nonsense. You never said anything about any conspiracy. And yet here they are, accusing you of the very thing they are doing.

Social shaming is a powerful mechanism. Human beings are social animals. We have a built-in need to fit in and be accepted by others. This stems all the way back to our hunter-gatherer times, where being shunned by the tribe often meant certain death.

Today this takes the form of accepting official narratives force-fed to us by mass media. The overwhelming majority of people alive today do not have the courage to face simple facts that may bring unwanted and unpleasant feelings of pain, anguish, fear, or distress. They would much rather believe whatever makes them feel good and ignore or deny everything that contradicts whatever leads to those feelings.

As Ayn Rand once said, “you can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”. At some point, people’s weakness in accepting reality will always catch up with them. If you lack the courage to face facts, your world will one day come crumbling down around you.

All in all, a tyranny of the mind is a far greater threat than a tyranny by physical force. Those in throes of mental manipulation cannot see how they have been blinded. They will never know or even suspect that they are being controlled, and they would not believe or even care if someone told them. This kind of control has far greater power, as it cannot be resisted.  What cannot be perceived cannot be fought.

These days, most everything is a conspiracy. By making fun of those who ask questions, point out simple facts, or see through various facades, those in power have somehow achieved complete and total silencing of the truth via methods of social shaming similar to those used by children in elementary school.  We must not allow our freedom of speech to be silenced in this manner.

Fight back

Fight back against silence

The only way to combat such mental tyranny is to never back down. How does one deal with a childhood bully in school? Beat him into the ground. There is no other solution. The bully will not understand anything else. No substitute for brute force exists. While we are indoctrinated to believe that violence solves nothing, there are times when nothing gets solved without violence.

Thankfully, being bullied by weak and feeble-minded adults does not require physical violence. It simply involves facing facts, having the courage to state them to others, and never backing down. So not shy away when faced with the conspiracy lunacy nonsense. Do not fail to speak your mind when you know things don’t add up. And don’t hesitate to ask questions to those who sheepishly buy into ideas that make no sense.

That last point bears repeating. Asking questions often can prove far more productive than anything else. By asking someone a question regarding their line of thought, they will have to begin formulating an answer. And in doing so, they will see that their conclusion does not add up.   Often times this is the only way to burst their pathetic little bubble.  Do not let childhood bullies take away your freedom of speech.

Trump Russia fiction and Neo-McCarythism

For at least an entire year now, media has been obsessed with the alleged Russian influencing of the #2016 election.  Does the Trump Russia connection really exist?

This mysterious and elusive Russian or group of Russians allegedly turned the tide of votes in Trump’s favor. They did so by hacking voting systems, thus they somehow interfered. Or they hacked the DNC, exposing the crimes of Hillary Clinton, and leaked the info to Wikileaks. Or there was “collusion” between the Trump administration and some shadowy figures over there in Russia. No, wait, those same shadowy figures created fake Twitter bots and purchased advertisements on Facebook that somehow convinced people to vote for Trump.  Trump Russia connections are all around us.  The following comes from a Time article with the ridiculous and hysterical title, “Trump’s many many many many ties to Russia” From Time:

Russian intelligence agencies have allegedly recently digitally broken into four different American organizations that are affiliated either with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party since late May. All of the hacks appear designed to benefit Donald Trump’s presidential aspirations in one fashion or another.

What was it again?

Can you remember exactly what “they” did? Has it ever been articulated just who “they” are? Is there any evidence that anything like this ever really happened?

The short answer to all the above is no. None of it has any factual basis in reality. The entire drama has been created out of thin air.  The Trump Russia meme holds no weight.

To be sure, this is not an endorsement for the Trump administration, although it will surely be interpreted as such by those caught up in dichotomous thinking. More than anything else, this is an indictment of the most influential media channels in America today. Forging month’s worth of news coverage from pure and utter fiction is shameful at best. To this day, not a single shred of evidence has ever been presented to substantiate any of the outrageous claims that have been made. No proof exists that Russia had anything to do with the 2016 election. Founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange has joked about the state of Western journalism in 2017:

And this has nothing to do with any Russian citizen or politician. The entire narrative somehow assumes that Russia and America are adversaries. Why should this be the case? No legitimate reason exists.

A whole lot of nothing

I’m not defending Trump, or Russia, or any person or group. I’m simply pointing out that so many countless hours of media coverage have been devoted to something that doesn’t exist. It’s as if a major portion of the Western world has been transfixed upon an empty stage with no actors, watching with anticipation and curiosity as nothing happens. And all who witness this empty stage have recalled it to be a performance of something grand and told all their friends about it.

Perhaps I should create a play or musical about nothing, starring no one. I will create buzz by declaring that Russia plans to interfere in the production of this play. If this idea gets traction as the “Trump-Russia collusion 2016 election meddling” meme has, my play will prove to be the most profitable theatrical production in recorded history.

 

Protest Against Breitbart Editor Heralds the End of Freedom of Speech

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. – Voltaire

The timeless words of Voltaire have been lost on today’s populace.

It seems people prefer to riot, vandalize, and set things on fire rather than allow someone to express an opposing viewpoint.

Last week, Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos was scheduled to give a speech at the University of California at Berkeley. His speech wound up being canceled due to widespread rioting and violence.

People were smashing windows, setting fires, and throwing fireworks at police. What a way to fight against violence!

Outside Agitators

It’s important to note that many of these protestors were not students at UC Berkeley.   One can discern that much by the ninja-like apparel they were wearing. Dressed in all black with black bandanas or masks around their faces, these people incited violence on a magnificent scale. Who knows if they were paid provocateurs or just anarchists looking for a good time? Both scenarios seem plausible.

The following comes from ABC: 

“…But officials said it was a smaller group of protesters dressed in black and in hooded sweatshirts that showed up as night fell to break windows with metal barricades, throw smoke bombs and flares and start a large bonfire outside the building with a diesel generator.

“This was a group of agitators who were masked up, throwing rocks, commercial grade fireworks and Molotov cocktails at officers,” said UC Berkeley Police Chief Margo Bennet.

Bennet said police determined at that point they couldn’t guarantee security, canceled the event and evacuated Yiannopoulos from the building.”

All this was done in the name of preventing “hate speech”, on the grounds that it might incite violence. And get this – Yiannopoulos’ speech was supposed to be about the very topic of violent protestors shutting out alternative viewpoints and silencing freedom of speech.

One can almost taste the irony and hypocrisy.

What’s most disgusting about this demonstration of hatred and intolerance is that it was rewarded. The speech had to be cancelled because of the violence. The message was clear: throw a temper tantrum, mix in some provocateurs, and you can silence anyone you want.

President Trump weighed in on the night’s events with the following Tweet:

“If U.C Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?

According to Breitbart, UC Berkeley receives almost half of all its funding from the federal government. So Trump’s threat, if more than mere rhetoric (doubtful), would be quite a serious one, having severe ramifications upon the operations of the university.

Although the violence that led to the cancellation of the speech seems to have been induced by outside agitators, at least in part, it still speaks to the sad state of freedom of speech in America that college students would have any part in such a thing.

From free speech areas to safe spaces

When I was in college (not many years ago), there was a “free speech area” on campus. People used this space for all kinds of things ranging from musical performances, promoting political ideas, advertising businesses, playing music and dancing, or ranting on a PA about some topic no one really cared about. Even religious fanatics would come on campus preaching their ideas to a less than receptive audience.

No one threw a fit about it. No violence or protests ever ensued. For the most part, people either listened or walked away. It was that simple.

While some people ridiculed the idea of a so-called “free speech area” on the grounds that all areas ought to be designated as such under the constitution, in retrospect that criticism pales in comparison to what has been happening as of late.

Instead of free speech zones, campuses now have “safe spaces”. These can be seen as the polar opposite of a free speech zone. It seems some students have grown so sensitive to opposing viewpoints that they cannot tolerate even entertaining thoughts that counter their own.

It’s as if, when encountered by someone such as a religious fanatic, instead of walking away, people now either break down and cry or respond with violence.

And when a speaker some people don’t like comes to campus, a violent riot ensues. In the past, people who didn’t want to hear someone just wouldn’t attend the speech. Perhaps they’d encourage others to do the same. Why does that option no longer occur to people in certain instances?

I have inkling as to why.

Indoctrinating Intolerance

If you listen to the enraged screaming of violent rioters, the same theme often comes up regarding why they just cannot let someone speak.

They say that misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc. speech cannot be allowed. They argue this on the grounds that it might incite violence. The very kind of violence they engage in and promote against those they say will cause such violence.

This kind of behavior has come about as a direct result of the radical feminist brainwashing machine. Indoctrination on college campuses has been happening for years. And it seems to have reached a peak as of late. (See The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say)

This school of thought promotes hatred against so-called “privileged” members of society. For the most part, that includes white heterosexual males.  Hatred must not be tolerated. When it comes to white males, however, hatred is not only tolerated but also justified, righteous, and even necessary.

The hatred stems from beliefs about patriarchal hegemony. Entire books exist on the subject. Yet distilled to its purest essence, it can be seen as the idea that all of society’s injustices stem from imperceptible privilege that allows certain people power, thereby marginalizing others. These people are men, but not gay or minority men.

If inequality and injustice arise from a single group of people, what solution exists?

The answer involves a single word: genocide.

Yes, there are radical feminists out there who advocate for genocide of all white males. And even if they did not, the logical progression of this idea system cannot lead anywhere else.

It’s flawless logic from the perspective of such ideology. Get rid of white males, and society will become equal, harmonious, peaceful, and magical.

This general concept has been repeated throughout history.  It progresses from the scapegoating of one segment of the population.  While details differ, the general process looks like this: 1) All of society’s problems fall upon one specific group. 2) This group gets perceived as having all power. 3) Envy ensues, leading to rage and hatred. 4) Hatred gives way to silencing (the step we are at now). 5) Silencing then increases, either to marginalization or genocide.

Distraction Epidemic

One would think that with labor force participation rates near forty-year lows, national debt including unfunded liabilities exceeding $200 trillion, central banks impoverishing the world, and issues such as geoengineering destroying the entire planet,  we’d be able to stop fighting and focus on issues that affect us all.

Yet as long as education focuses on indoctrination, and mainstream news focuses on division, there will never be solutions to the direst issues that have a detrimental impact upon everyone. Most will never even think about such issues.

In short, hateful rhetoric inspires reprehensible behavior. When freedom of speech becomes silenced, the group doing the silencing become perpetuators of the exact type of hegemony they claim to be rallying against.

What do you think? Is it okay to shut down another’s scheduled speech because you disagree with them? Have we as a society become so obsessed with tolerance that we have become intolerant? And does rhetoric perceived as violent deserve to be silenced with actual violence?

Leave your thoughts regarding the current state of freedom of speech in a comment below.