Search? Click Here
Join the BUGS Team! Post on the internet along with us to fight White Genocide!

Tyranny Is Free Speech With Exceptions

Posted by Bob on October 31st, 2012 under Coaching Session

Stalin’s Constitution of 1936 declared more freedom than did any US constitution, state or Federal. But those announced freedoms were limited by one small problem: No one could exercise them if they would interfere with Purposes of the State.

We are told that “Hate is not free speech.” Throughout history the motto has been that “Heresy is not free speech.”

By that definition, everybody has free speech. Slaves were permitted to say anything they wished, so long as it did not interfere with the will of their masters.

It amuses me to hear someone refer to “the Constitution.”Photobucket

We all know that “the Constitution” is the current opinion of five lawyers who had the political clout to get appointed and confirmed.

The “right to bear arms” means that five of these lawyers are currently of the opinion that statistical, not “constitutional” data, shows that this so-called “right” is good public policy. This “right” to bear arms is never considered a right. It is a temporary decision by five lawyers that people carrying guns is good or bad.

This has nothing to do with a Constitution. This has nothing to do with a “right.”

As with Stalin, the so-called “right” to free speech is now simply the right to speak if it doesn’t cause trouble.

Every established religion and tyranny in history had free speech according to those criteria. The Medieval Church, slaveholders and Mao-Tse Tung all agreed that they allowed free speech, with certain exceptions:

1) Heresy was not free speech;

2) Free speech was all right if it didn’t make trouble; or

3) Stand in the way of the purposes of society.

Those three exceptions are all accepted by America today, by the left and by the respectable right.

  1. #1 by Simmons on 10/31/2012 - 10:35 am

    Our essayists have produced work for decades and it ran up against the word “racist” as used by the “anti-racists.”

    You would think they would stop and ask themselves how to destroy those obstacles but they have not. We BUGsters challenge that bit of blindness, our essayists cannot hold out against us for much longer, the dam is cracking.

    Those three things Bob lists, we will be defining them within a few years.

    • #2 by premiseblog on 10/31/2012 - 7:06 pm

      “Those three things Bob lists, we will be defining them within a few years.”

      The MEN WHO SAY WHAT THEY THINK are beginning to crop up. Imagine walking Truth Mouths walking all over and mouthing off, a RamZPaul on every corner.

      When something needs to happen, the Mouths will start to come out of the woodwork (internet).

    • #3 by c-bear on 10/31/2012 - 8:02 pm

      “Those three things Bob lists, we will be defining them within a few years.”
      It’s time we stop answering closed ended systems with close ended systems.

  2. #4 by Dave on 10/31/2012 - 4:47 pm

    Free people don’t have “Founding Fathers” and have no need for written constitutions.

    The “Founding Fathers” that Americans are taught from infancy to worship used the American Constitution as a means to reverse the aims and achievements of the long contest of arms labeled the “American Revolution”.

    Our “Founding Fathers” understood stupid dog trick politics perfectly and the fact that these tricks work cycle after cycle endlessly, without fail.

    The whole thing they represented failed right out the box. Their Constitution was supposed to be a means for achieving comprehensive political settlements that people would respect and the use of force would be warded off. Instead, the real history of America has been nonstop political violence and the full measure of propaganda that goes with wartime conditions.

    An atrocity story is a permanent feature of war. “The Holocaust” is just the latest one. There is always one when you are at war and Americans are always at war.

    It is kind of hard to come to terms with the fact that the American Revolution achieved nothing, especially when our current dictatorship and very un-free conditions of life flies in the face of the catechism we have been taught to worship by our Established Religion of Political Correctness

    • #5 by Conrad on 11/01/2012 - 7:54 pm

      So true. The problem is that WE ARE NOT THE ONES IN CONTROL. But, once we are in control we can make it illegal to suggest, recommend or sanction any part of white genocide. A capital offense if I ever saw one.
      www. jackswar. com
      Jack’s War

  3. #6 by Cleric Preston on 10/31/2012 - 5:38 pm

    Today there is ‘Freedom of Anti-White speech’

  4. #7 by premiseblog on 10/31/2012 - 7:09 pm

    “Slaves were permitted to say anything they wished, so long as it did not interfere with the will of their masters.”

    Whites are slaves.
    “After all – as Steve Sailer so hilariously and astutely surmised – we got to the Moon using slide rules. Just imagine what we will be able to do once Black-Run America (BRA) ends and the stifling limitations of forever uplifting and advancing Black people to the point of having a median wealth of $5,677 and for single Black females to have a net worth of $5 is officially over. “

  5. #8 by Grabbit on 10/31/2012 - 8:10 pm

    Nice article, in Germany there are many people who believe there should be no “unrestricted” free speech, i guess its because they dont have free speech, so they prefer playing stockholm syndrom to realizing an unpleasant fact.
    If you define free speech as allowing for exceptions to free speech, than it is impossible to name a situation where that right is violated. Since the definition allows for violation. A right that cant be violated doesnt even exist. There is therefore no “free speech with exceptions”. There is only “free speech”, which by definition excludes any exceptions.

  6. #9 by c-bear on 10/31/2012 - 8:13 pm

    “Free speech” is a fantasy. It is a fantasy that came out of the mind of our race. While this freedom is not absolute, with the advent of the internet (also of our race) we have more freedom of speech now then ever, which is why it is imperative we get our message out now.

  7. #10 by DennisK on 11/01/2012 - 4:05 am

    In Australia, the left have been using what they call “Their Free Speech” to try and destroy the employment of a radio broadcaster here, Alan Jones. This was in response to comments he made at a private function which were leaked by an undercover reporter.

    They have been doing this by trying to whip people up to boycott the sponsors of his show that the radio station he appears on. The Left have no aversion at all to bullying, and it is quite interesting that they are defending this, by saying this bullying is freedom of speech.

    What they are really doing, is trying to destroy what they perceive to be a threat, and any non-leftist ideology to them, is a threat and therefore violence justified.

    So they are well aware of the power of free speech, and well aware of the need to wield that power themselves, by themselves.

    And all debates about limitations of free speech are power struggles. As soon as one accepts there are limitations to free speech, they are accepting the premise that it is moral for one person to exercise POWER over another person. Having ANY limitation on free speech, REQUIRES one person to have power over another’s right to express their thoughts. Because and decision of what is ‘appropriate’ will always be made by those having the POWER to exert their particular moral view over others.

    It is simply not possible not possible at all to have both a free society where everyone is equal under the law, and limitation of freedom of speech.

    Limitation of free speech, no matter how benign, no matter how altruistic the motives, as soon as it occurs, creates a situation where people by force, exercise power over each other.

    So we must simply state it as such. Limitation of free speech is an exercise of power by force.

  8. #11 by BGLass on 11/01/2012 - 9:47 am

    Attention to the constitution seems like a White sub-group type thing, since it’s a thing the colonial populations HAVE to work with.

    A blood-related group made a document, an oath, a code, sort of thing— which shows people can create their own reality, and DECIDE to play it some way or another— until they don’t.

    References to it are often just in defense of the colonist peoples, who are degraded in mainstream narratives. It is an attempt to defend against genocide of the colonial peoples.

  9. #12 by BGLass on 11/01/2012 - 9:49 am

    —through the attempt at using the “constitution” to “legitimate” themselves, they are implicitly admitting they feel attacked (by another group). It is “the (ethnic) colonists and their allies,” really.

  10. #13 by GregP on 11/01/2012 - 9:24 pm

    C-beat said,
    “‘Free speech’ is a fantasy. It is a fantasy that came out of the mind of our race. While this freedom is not absolute. . .”

    He couldn’t be more right. The thing is, “Freedom of Speech” is a fantasy now and ALWAYS WILL BE. Even under a pro-white system. The difference is that our system would offer a greater degree of freedom of speech. But please, my fellow BUGsters, don’t be so naive as to think that ANY society could ever have “absolute free speech.”

    Every society/culture/nation/state has values, and every one of them will have values they are not willing to compromise. Our uncompromising, absolute value will have to be that we do not tolerate white genocide, or the promotion of it.

    A state with “absolute” or “unlimited” ” free speech” would have no values. It would hold nothing sacred (not even our people’s right to exist); it would be the ultimate moral relativist state. And what would happen in such a fairytale state? Some group of people with an agenda, who actually have values would use free speech to take control of the state and impose their value system…thus limiting free speech.

    Now, I’m all for the “open systems” way of doing things, and maximizing freedom and all that jazz, to the extent it’s possible and viable without inflicting harm on/enslaving our people or threatening to remove from power those who are uncompromising in standing against white genocide.

    That said, I realize people are not politically intelligent enough to understand this very basic concept, SO, I can get behind and support pushing for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of “free speech” (freedom to promote white genocide in 1,000,001 forms) in our anti-white closed-system society of today. Besides, if anti-whites could get away with such blatantly obvious hypocrisy, we can get away with it too, especially since ours will only be technical, and will not be genocidal and hostile in nature to the people under it like the anti-white system is now.

Comments are closed.