This article originally appeared on The Counter-Revolution website.
In his essay Unanswered Equality Challenge, John C. Wright, a Catholic writer who disdains monarchy and defends Americanist republican democracy, asks a question of his monarchist fans:
“Do those who yearn for inequality wish to be placed in the political order above me, to give me orders from an unearned position of authority; or do they wish to be placed below me, to take orders in an undeserved posture of submission?”
The problem is that when it comes to America’s “free speech”, this inequality already exists. When it comes to “free speech”, there already is a group of people in an unearned position of authority: the oligarchic class. When it comes to people taking orders in an undeserved posture of submission, we already have this: the public mind itself, whose thoughts are controlled by the speech and expression of this oligarchic class. The oligarchs furthermore suppress all opposition into “postures of submission” with their influence and the powers of the state.
Free Speech In The Hands of Democracy
In my previous article, Free Speech: A Weaponized Myth Used Successfully By The Left, we learned that the Left “plays the game of free speech” when it is convenient. Yet once they have the advantage, they can throw away the pretensions that speech was ever free at all. Free speech is just a pragmatic aid for the Left, and in reality the concept is a farce and a tool used to gain ground against political opposition.
Democratic government works in much the same way as the Left. We are allowed to pretend that freedom of expression is a legitimate and real liberty that should be fought for. It is not real at all, but it is convenient for the government to keep up the charade.
Democracy is a system based on opinions, and it has an interest in controlling the opinions of voters in order to remain in place. By influencing the masses, a democratic state has the ability to last a long time, enjoying almost unlimited power. The democratic state, therefore, controls the media and the education system of a country.
There is no real level playing field when it comes to the media. This isn’t a “wild west” media landscape that President Obama would scorn. No, instead, major media outlets are under political control. This is not equality. In the United States and throughout the West, newspapers and cable news have been in the pocket of our own governments. News stories and polls are manipulated toward a certain end. In our educational systems, tomorrow’s voters are created and oriented in the way our government would consider fit and proper. Christophe Buffin de Chosal sums up these facts in The End of Democracy:
“In democracy, the one who controls public opinion controls the reins of power. The fact that there exist several rival parties has little effect on this scheme. Nuances of opinion will be permitted, and margins for maneuver will be tolerated. But stray beyond these margins and there are rigorous censures to pressure the nonconformists back into the sheepfold, or at least to isolate and discredit them.”
The government throws us dogs a bone, but we do not have free speech. The golden legend is a lie. In reality, there is no freedom of speech or thought. A democratic government will happily pretend that everyone has a right to have a say–but people can only go so far. Democracy treats free speech like the Left does: it wears “freedom of expression” like a shield, but it’s a posture meant to achieve an illusion for the masses.
The result is that we have an easily-deceived populace of uncritical people who put trust in the state and are slow to defend themselves against it. Moreover, the populace is conditioned like the Eloi of H.G. Wells’ The Time Machine. They are disgusted by any other idea that is not Americanist, as we can see in the case of John C. Wright. To think outside of the box–to consider an entirely new political system apart from democracy–is to dissent from the cult and invite ostracization. Those who go beyond the bounds of acceptable public discourse are enemies of the Matrix.
The Limits Of “Free Speech” In Democracy
As I’ve pointed out before, John C. Wright believes that error has rights, and men should be allowed to express their folly:
“A poor man has the same natural right to own his hovel as the rich man his mansion, and your natural freedom of speech is not less or more if you speak folly or wisdom.”
A democratic government will have no problem maintaining this golden legend. Fools are allowed their folly in a democracy. A democracy keeps its population down with such promises. In this way, the citizenry is, as Chosal describes, “dependent, malleable, fragile, and without the slightest desire for autonomy.” Democracy–whether it’s a parliamentary or a republican democracy–is intrinsically designed to be taken over by some kind of a minority that seeks its own advantage. And this minority–which always becomes an oligarchy–destroys the traditional values of the populace, creating welfare states that marginalize the nuclear family.
Attack this convenient arrangement at your peril. Become legitimate enough and popular enough with your attacks against the reigning paradigm, and you will discover yourself a foreign body in a circulatory system that’s about to be attacked by the “white blood cells” of the state. Rock the boat, and you will discover that there truly is no such thing as free speech. You will discover that a democratic government certainly does have limits for speech, as Chosal describes this scheme of social enslavement:
“Every state, whatever it may be, defends the principles on which it was founded. The religion, the monarchy, the nation, morality, and property were values which states preceding the welfare state did not compromise. It was not such a long time ago that those considered traitors to the nation were condemned to death. Parliamentary democracy in its form as a totalitarian-oriented welfare state, makes no exception to this rule. It also has values which cannot be violated, namely anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-colonialism, anti-classical liberalism, and, more recently, the worrying mental aberrations of anti-discrimination and gender ideology.
“Democracy, which was born amidst demands for freedom of thought and expression, never itself wanted to tolerate freedom of thought and expression entirely. It persecuted Zola, Marx, and Oscar Wilde, but also Charles Maurras. It forbade fascist parties and monarchical movements, but it has not forbidden communist parties. Democracy does not trust its voters, whom it judges to be immature and in need of safeguards. Democracy, which so forcefully condemned the Index of the Catholic Church, has restored or even never abolished the crime of opinion. Today in the European Union, there are, as in China and Vietnam, dozens of people put into prison for their opinions. Democracy is watching.”
Free speech is not real. It is a bedtime story. John Locke’s fantasies of the Law of Nature are as hazardous as the ideology of Marxism. It doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked, and yet people keep fighting for it. We in America claim to hold free speech as a freedom dear to our hearts. Yet with democracy, no declaration of rights is capable of protecting the citizen from the state’s abuse of power. When the oligarchy is threatened, they will sometimes invoke the idea of rights such as free speech; other times, when convenient, that same oligarchy keeps quiet about your rights. A confusion about what is permissible is intentionally left to linger in our public consciousness
For a democratic republic like the United States, free speech is a legal pretension designed as a substitution for morality. As Chosal explains, democratic governments have contempt for human rights, selectively accommodating those rights when it is convenient for them.
“Human rights are a purely Western invention inspired by Enlightenment philosophy; they advocate individualism and secularism and have a materialistic view of the human being. But Western governments have no scruples practicing a form of neocolonialism in imposing human rights on countries or peoples totally foreign to Western culture and for whom the human rights ideology represents alienation more than liberation.
“One cannot therefore count on human rights to act in opposition to the totalitarian orientations of democracy, for it is they that give democracy a philosophical basis which is presented as universal truth.”
Free speech is a bogus concept that serves as a handy mechanism for the archons to keep us in line. If free speech was a recognized moral principle, the law would have no power over it, and it would be a force more sovereign than the will of both the majority and the oligarchs that control them. Yet a cursory glance at news headlines clearly demonstrates that free expression is frequently overturned in our society.
The connivance of our cultural engineers and the tyranny of the brain-washed majority hang over all of our heads. Oligarchs are kept high in the political order with the help of many machinations–including the lie that we have free speech. The weakened majority, which has no fight in it, is happy to absorb and accept whatever narrative they are led to believe. They are fully prepared to cannibalize all who dissent from the main programmed narrative.
Those of us who remain, we who still adhere to traditional morality, continue on in this undeserved posture of submission. The reality is that this system we live in is worse than any Western monarchy before it, contrary to what is said by Americanist heretics.