“Hate Speech”

Today, on February 1st, 2017, our civilisation began to collapse. A man in Montreal was arrested for “hate speech” targeting Muslims, sometime around 2am. In the doing, our country, our Charter, and everything we were brought up on begins to slowly sink into the fetid swamp of history.

I just wrote a piece on how force is impossible to succeed with, as it relates to a 27-year-old white kid shooting up a mosque.

Well, the same principle is true here.

You can’t force people to do anything. You can kill them, but that’s counterproductive. It creates inspirational martyrs, and doesn’t inspire anyone to want to follow whatever it was you killed that person for. It just scares them into silence for a little bit—right up until it no longer does.

It also, naturally, forces the government to concentrate massive amounts of finite resources into building a force for that government which can willingly and capably eliminate anyone who disagrees with it. That’s the whole thing about enforcing stuff; someone has to do it, and then it’s not like those people, their equipment, or the force that they represent just vanishes, only to return at a later date of need. It still has to be paid for, maintained, and given purpose.

You can see this happening already, as the article mentions that the state will not be hiring people to comb social media and look for “hate speech.” How much power are they going to have? How long will it stay that way?

How long before one of those people notices this article which chastises their profession, and decides that that’s hateful? After all, how can you defend Islam without people defending Islam? After all, and obviously, the desire to remove Islam’s protections on social media is naturally the first step to attacking Islam! That’s hate speech!

As they pay for more of these police forces, and more watchdogs, as the budgets get approved and legalised, this enforcement arm of the state becomes the state. Things grind ever onward toward dissolution.

I don’t like slippery slope arguments, but you can’t deny their historical validity. In age of C-average dominoes colliding with and knocking over other C-average dominoes, all you have are slippery slope arguments, because average, everyday people take what they have at the moment (we need to protect Islam!) and do what they can think of (we should imprison people who hate Islam!) without thinking about the meaning of the words “protect,” “imprison,” “hate,” or “Islam.”

In order to not have slippery slope arguments, you’d need people in the majority who are willing to walk uphill. Our civilisation no longer has that. Just like Russia, like Germany, like anywhere that left totalitarianism takes hold, we have a scared, repressed, domesticated and over-taxed group of livestock who march in the direction they’re told to march.

Why, in our era? Well, because someone might call you a racist. An “Islamaphobe.” It’s spectacular that we are now contravening our entire civilisation because we’re worried about how much words might hurt us.

Words don’t hurt. There is no hate speech. Hitler didn’t just use his voice to single out the Jews, and neither did Lenin. Forces, trends, and history intervened at every single step, and made things obvious to those men and their insanities.

That’s what you address. You don’t declare things “hate speech” and start having people summarily shot; you actually address the problem. Why don’t people like Islam? What’s the real problem, here? Why would you employ hate speech?

Then you start to answer. Discuss things. Talk, for fuck’s sake, which you absolutely can’t do if people are winding up in jail.

If the answer is “because they’re different?” You know, let’s take the absolute worst case, the total, absolute minority case where someone is actually a racist. They don’t like Muslims because they smell bad, or have a different complexion, or keep praying wrong, on carpets and stuff; whatever farcical nonsense you can come up with. Let’s do it. Let’s pretend Frank, here, has no rational justification for hating Muslims; he just does.

Okay. Hi Frank. Frank’s an idiot.


No, actually. Why listen to someone like this? Just leave him alone. The times are already changing. Frank’s unlikely to be able to do much profitable business without having some Muslims as customers or suppliers. His intolerant mental status will probably prevent him from having high-quality mates to breed with, excluding him from the genetics of the human race of the future.

Frank’s already dead, you see? You can’t fight the free market. You can’t fight ideas, and the current idea is that it doesn’t matter who you are as long as you have money and something to contribute. Basically, justice and business are the governing ideas of our civilisation. That’s why we can let our population say whatever they want, do whatever they want as long as it’s not some type of force aggression against others.

Because in the end, whether or not there are lawyers, policemen, politicians or media slander involved, everyone will get what they deserve, in the end. If you don’t think they are? Your ideas about the nature of our civilisation might be misguided. You may be experiencing cognitive dissonance, and you may need to go find and read Scott Adams’ blog for a little bit.

The conclusion here? A government built on forcing its way into your speech and into your head is a government that is about to collapse and give way to something else. I encourage everyone to talk their heads off, and get into this fight right now, while we still have suffrage.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s