Racial dialogue and freedom of speech

So I just watched the documentary Alt. Right: The Age of Rage and got my first half-decent look at slithery citizens of Trump’s America Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor.  

The film could be claimed a simple forum for both sides of a race debate to state their case and that any failure to do so reflects on the them and not the filmmakers. But the project does strike me as a lightweight Michael Moore-ian effort where white-supremacists are cozened to and frankly look bad, but without overtly hanging themselves (humorously or otherwise), and where intelligent logical examinations of the material are noticeably missing; where a whole lot of unqualified opinions and groundless generalization suffices instead - and not just from the uptightie whities but from outspoken and unmasked black antifa (anti-fascist) champion (and potential martyr in my nervous opinion) Daryle Lamont Jenkins.

Jenkins’ mandate is to publicly oppose these speakers by leading rallies and counter-demonstrations and to publicly out alt-right supporters who depend on anonymity in order to keep their jobs and reputations. It’s called doxxing and its applicable targets are somewhat few in number given the nebulous nature of this so-called “movement”; a term in question given the great bulk of their apparent followers being unidentifiable in terms of their precise beliefs or motivations. Many, when cornered, appear to be more or less trolls, looking for dumbass entertainment as escape from lives they are too dull-minded to make meaning of, or, likewise, needing to unleash bottled rage in any direction someone will legitimize for them.

It’s hard to know what to make of the film’s two lead cretins. Almost certainly the film-makers are not entirely sympathetic to them and I wonder how intelligent they might have seemed pre-edit. Almost everything coming out of their mouths on-screen is dull-minded rhetoric, delusional ambition or childish baiting of their “opposition”; a mysterious entity known by the sadly-confused (including the U.S. president) as the “Alt. Left.”

There is of course, no such thing whatsoever as “alt. left” except as a keyboard button. Anti-racism and anti-violence are hallmark qualities of the entire left in their millions - which is why 99.9% of first world institutions espouse these values.

Richard Spencer, the dude who famously took the video-taped street-side sucker-punch, according to the (however possibly limited) film’s evidence amounts to an isolationist; a protector of white culture who claims that America must draw a line down the middle, offer the darkies whichever coast they prefer, and then relocate 150 million-or-so citizens (less however many millions die in the inevitable civil war I presume). The arguments against this, if you can possibly keep a straight face, could fill a library and I have more useful things to get to before this post becomes epic.

Author (self-published rather obviously) and American Renaissance online magazine founder Jared Taylor (per same proviso) appears as an intellectual pursuer of racial consciousness; a race realist; a white-advocate (and thankfully not anti-Semitic by the way). Neither express outward hate of non-whites but do publicly demonstrate disrespect with various degrees of subtlety.

At the core of my interest is the call of these and other such characters, including a pearly-white university freshman who virtually cried on my shoulder over the dilemma, is their denial of free speech with regards to addressing audiences, or booking academic meetings on issues which challenge, or potentially challenge, our traditional observances of racial, gender or other equalities. (I must confess that every time someone mentions free speech I immediately scan the horizon in hopes of swift alien abduction and begin stifling yawns. Much like political correctness I never find the phrase muttered in any coherent context.)

In terms of public speaking and free speech, there are some very important considerations in my opinion:

:

The origin of the right to free speech is the right to question your government or church without being prosecuted by them (An ideal which Bush Junior clearly began dismantling by the way).

What you freely speak is still ethically and morally bound to you. You are not protected from consequences of what you do or say.

Various rights are always bumping into one another and are subject to priority. There are other rights in this society which are not trumped by the right to free speech. For one, parties have the right to choose who they allow on the stages they own or are charged to govern and the right to choose who to listen to. Thus if you want to freely speak beyond your own bedroom it requires greater and greater levels of cooperation. Lack of cooperation does not necessarily amount to denial of your rights. You are not the centre of the universe.

People also have the right to life and as such, to defend it. When lawyer and Whack-Job o’ the Century (and self-tortured closeted homosexual almost certainly), Matt McLaughlin, tried proposing a California bill in which homosexuals should be arbitrarily “shot with bullets in the head or else killed by any convenient method” it was obvious to me that this very action was a legitimate attempt at causing death and that no gay Californian could be blamed for being terrified at this and could effectively interpret his life endangered and thus if he chose to kill McLaughlin it could only be considered self-defense and such a plea should be easily converted by any competent defense lawyer.

My point is that if non-whites, or any targeted group, can only interpret that a public speech can only manifest widespread motives for the de-valuing of their life then they are in danger and their instincts will know it and produce some degree of panic, lucid or otherwise. If you make this happen for people then it’s inevitable you will meet urgent opposition and whether we label that opposition legally justified or not is not very compelling. It’s inevitable. There is such a thing as natural law and natural justice.

So the question becomes: does your speech qualify as an attack? You either believe it does not or you rationalize and choose to claim that it does not. But then, if your aims are legitimate then who is your legitimate audience?

I actually would take an interest in reasonably discussing the natural phenomena of tribalism and its role in making our species successful, and its relevance in today’s society. I would happily provide a forum for discussion to “racial consciousness” or “race realism” were it in my power. And by the way, I would go on to point out how natural tribal instinct does not make racism legitimate but rather it is an example of our morbid domination instinct which made us “winners” but which we must evolve away from before it inevitably causes our self-destruction. Not that this is much of a motivator with regards to my own personal behaviour by the way. I am generally organically kind and respectful for the most part and feel a great fondness for most life forms with skunks and biting black flies among the few exceptions. I would delight in making those fuckers extinct.

But it seems I’m a pretty small minority in terms of that open-mindedness. It seems evident to me that the great majority of kind, empathetic people have no interest in opening up this troublesome dialogue likely due in some large part to their own repressed doubt, as witnessed by the social norm where nice guy leaders define racism to the masses in completely inaccurate terms, almost Santa Clausian which are very palatable to the average citizen but do not enlighten anyone and do not actually help the problem beyond potentially shaming outward racists into keeping their mouths shut. I can’t imagine that a minority of people; intellectuals or whatnot with a healthy interest in these subjects, would be at all inclined toward attending these kinds of public speeches. The potential perils outweigh the potential benefit. And indeed these speeches which I have glimpsed inevitably contain telltale tidbits aimed at delighting haters. Obviously they know where their audience is coming from and depend on their numbers to give them status.

When you know that your speech is going to be largely attended by, and supported by, aggressive bigots (because with or without your explicit endorsement you are the only public voice saying anything close to what they want to hear), then you have espoused their interests and can expect no discernment from them when you are judged, and so free speech has become irrelevant on the matter. You have limited your access to whatever dreary places your audience governs. You have made the wrong friends and thus made the wrong enemies, regardless how evil you are in your heart, or not.