One can still value liberty, private life, individuality, and private enterprise, but only to the extent that they promote a healthy society. – Greg Johnson, "The Relevance of the Old Right."

The debate around Section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act has often been framed in terms of whether or not free speech should be taken as an absolute right. This makes it easy for leftists to yell “checkmate” when, almost inevitably, their opponents must concede that other limitations exist and are desirable. 18C proponents can point to a long-standing tradition of sedition, defamation and obscenity laws that are relatively uncontroversial.

For example, the Commonwealth Sedition Law, as updated under the Howard Government in 2005, defines the crime in this way:

An intention to effect any of the following purposes:

(a) to bring the Sovereign into hatred or contempt; (b) to urge disaffection against the following: (i) the Constitution; (ii) the Government of the Commonwealth; (iii) either House of the Parliament; (c) to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth; (d) to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.

I have bolded the words that refer to emotions, since a complaint often made against Section 18C is that its use of the words “offend” and “insult” are inherently vague as they refer only to subjective feelings. In fact, this is the substance of the current review, which seems likely to replace these terms with the oh-so much clearer term "vilify."

In my opinion, the sections of the above-quoted law making it illegal to advocate violence against the sovereign should be sufficient to clamp down on genuine sedition; it shouldn’t be necessary to add a provision that could be interpreted as making a satirical cartoon of the Queen a punishable offence. But do we ever need laws against publishing things intended to make the audience feel a certain way? In some circumstances, I would argue, yes.

One kind of free speech that we need more of.

Consider laws against child pornography. What is the difference between a mother taking a naked photo of her child for the family album, and a paedophile sharing the same image? The sole difference is in the intent to stimulate a particular feeling in the viewer, in this case sexual arousal.

Laws against child exploitation can be used to ban child porn for the most part, but not in the case just outlined. Further, I take it I am not alone in wanting all pornography banned. Why? Mainly Because it engenders habitually unhealthy mental states in porn addicts. The issue of just what exactly counts as porn and what exemptions might exist for art or other things is a delicate one, but decisions must be made by someone in authority. No one ever said statecraft was easy!

Notwithstanding these considerations, I am absolutely opposed to hate speech legislation such as Section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act (as well as the massive quantity of other state and federal laws currently used to restrict political speech). Here's why.

The difference between 18C, etc., and reasonable limitations on what people are allowed to say and publish in a healthy society is simply that the former is against the common interest of the nation. It is a law actually designed to aid in the destruction of the people who live under it, and as such can never be justified. Its intention was always to impose a nation and race-destroying social order on White Australia. I oppose this law because I want a return to the homogeneous European society we had forty years ago, and of course I want to be able to advocate freely for that.

But aren’t I doing that quite freely on this website? To an extent, yes. I am an anonymous individual expressing these opinions under a pseudonym, in my spare time. If my identity were known, I might face legal repercussions and more. If this essay were to point a finger at a particular (((group))), say, who have played a disproportionate role in undermining the rights we used to enjoy, might that not be construed by some as vilification? Remember--and this is key to distinguishing hate speech laws from defamation laws in general--truth, by definition, is no defense under hate speech laws (otherwise libel laws would be sufficient).

Or I might not actually be prosecuted; I might merely be forced to undergo mandatory conciliation under the threat of court action, in the process of which my employer would likely be informed, enabling him in a variety of scenarios to fire me.

If laws like this were repealed, people would be free to pro-White, pro-Australian views more openly and in more mainstream forums. Our right to speak up for our heritage and our descendants would be not only allowed but tacitly protected by the repeal of legislation that was always designed to stifle us.

Furthermore, we know that our enemies don’t just want us to think twice before offending them; they want to proscribe us and lock us up. Look at what has happened in the UK to Joshua Bonehill, among others. This time last year he was sentenced to three years and four months in prison for political speech satirising Jews; as of this month he has now been sentenced to a further two years for essentially the same thing.

Examples could be multiplied from all over the world. Anyone who believes the left's protestations that they want to "strike a balance" between competing rights is simply ill-informed about how politics works.

So the telos of 18C tends clearly in the direction of ever more persecution of those who reject the multicultural order that was inaugurated in Australia with the Race Discrimination Act and the Race Discrimination Commission themselves. In the international context we in Oz are, thankfully, a bit behind the times with our (only) relative absence of criminal legislation against "hate speech." Be sure that should they find themselves again on the ascendant, the left will push for more aggressive state intervention against opinions they don't like.

As I have argued, it isn't really tenable for us on the right to advocate for untrammelled free speech. There are perspectives we would like to silence too, but the moral distance between us and the left is inestimably great because we have the wellbeing of our people at heart, while their motivation is to destroy all legitimate social order because they prefer to to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.

When the Nazis came to power in Germany they had to dismantle the Lügenpresse, which they did by simply expropriating their officers and staffing them with party members answerable to Joseph Goebbels and his Propaganda Ministry. I’m not saying that this is the ideal approach for a post-multicultural Australia, but nonetheless, in its time it was an elegant solution that resulted in a much freer flow to truthful information in the national interest than the previous system of having Jews, communists and Jewish communists in control.

A gentler approach, which has my full endorsement, was outlined by Sir Oswald Mosley:

Newspapers are not made any longer by news or journalism. They are made by sheer weight of money expressed in free gift schemes, etc. They serve not the interests of the many but the vested interests of the few. In that service they will stoop to any lie or any debauch of the public mind. This must be stopped, and the freedom of the National Press to serve great interests at the expense of the nation must be curtailed. On the other hand, local newspapers, generally speaking, are fairly conducted, with a sense of national responsibility and will certainly be treated differently by Fascism from the great dope machines of the vested interests which now are dignified by the undeserved title of National Press. […]

Constructive criticism will always be welcomed by Fascist Government. False and malicious criticism designed to serve vested interests will be dealt with as follows. The Government representing the Nation will have the same right to sue a newspaper which makes untrue statements about it, as an individual at present possesses. If an individual is libelled he has redress in the Courts. But the Nation has no redress. Any lie may be told by a newspaper, however damaging to the national interest, with complete impunity. Lies against the nation should be dealt with even more severely than lies against the individual. Therefore, the right to sue in the Courts should be extended to the Nation represented by its elected Government.

For the sort of lies in question one need look no further than the barrage currently faced by Donald Trump. For example, the (((American))) Lugenpresse is now desperately attempting to delegitimise his electoral victory by reporting as fact highly tendentious rumours about Russian interference in the election for which no evidence has been provided. Like Mosley, Trump has talked of "open[ing] up the libel laws". Let's hope he delivers.

Of course, the "local newspapers" lauded by Mosley are today a thing of the past, having long since been bought up by big media corporations. What we do have today, though, is the internet, and on the same principle I would favour relative freedom of online communications for individuals without financial ties to any special interest.

Our ethnostate would be subject to attempts at external subversion that would make it necessary to censor the internet to some degree, to keep the international Jewish media from disseminating propaganda. Russia might be a good model to follow in this regard.

We would also want to actively roll back years of accumulated degeneracy in public attitudes, and prevent merchants, advertisers, and producers and purveyors of all kinds of rubbish from perverting public morals.

Not in our ethnostate, mate.

Behold the work of one of Australia's premier contemporary "artists," Juan Davila. For those with the stomach for it, a yet more disgusting and explicitly anti-national example of his work can be found here.

What's galling about the proponents of Section 18C and similar legislation is not that they oppose absolute free speech, but that they are trying to erect an edifice of forced multiculturalism, of genocidal forced assimilation, over the grave in which our White Australia lies buried alive. The question the current review ought to raise is not to what extent a multiracial Australia will have free speech, but how we are going to bring that high-rise slum crashing down.

AUTHOR

COMMENTS

Tag Cloud