How Offensive Is Offensiveness?
From: John Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005
One of the most important political issues to arise within the last half-century is the question of whether people have a right to not be offended. Traditionally this Right of Non-Offense (hereinafter designated RNO) has been the purview of conservatives, who have maintained an RNO in the realms of religion and sexuality, a right long ago recognized by the State in the form of laws against blasphemy, heresy, and various sexual behaviors. Now, however, with conservatism on the ropes, liberalism has not only captured the right to be offensive on the sexual and religious fronts, but has hewn out its own RNOs in the areas of race, ethnicity and sexuality.
The principal argument against RNOs has always been the right -- or at least the desirability -- of free speech, and in particular, the need to know and to communicate the bad news as well as the good. As I have often pointed out, this is vital, because without a knowledge of what has gone wrong -- something which can be obtained only by allowing people to speak freely -- neither persons nor governments can correct their behavior, with the result that they end up in wreck and ruin.
The desire for the RNO has always stemmed from the weak-egoed who cannot stand criticism, and from the short-term-oriented who prefer 'peace now' even if it means war later. The biggest offenders in these categories are women, whose short-term orientation is amply fit for the household (change the baby, stir the pot, keep the guests from fighting and the husband from grumping), and the minorities -- primarily blacks and browns -- whom the liberals have introduced into our midst in large numbers, whose power the liberals have nurtured, and whose short-term orientation reflects the fact that their genome was formed in lands of plenty -- Africa and South America -- where food and shelter could be obtained quickly and at little cost. This contrasts sharply with whites, whose inhospitable Northern lands made survival a constant struggle, and which therefore winnowed down the race to only those who could work efficiently and act together as a community, a situation which eventually led to mankind's greatest achievement, Western civilization.
It is not just that the liberal's favored minorities have a short time-preference, as it is often called; it is equally the case that they -- and particularly blacks -- have an emotional nature which causes a preternatural hysterical reaction when their time-preference is not satisfied. This, I believe, is a significant part of why blacks are so riot-prone and crime-prone: Their hair-trigger emotional nature causes them to react violently whenever their animal desires are sufficiently thwarted. Thus we see them tearing up their own neighborhoods when they hear of a 'racist incident', as they did in the Los Angeles riots and elsewhere; and we see them attacking, robbing and raping 'whitey'
because they have been convinced by the liberal media that 'whitey' -- and not their own low intelligence and impatience -- is the cause of their low economic and social status.
The fact that blacks and browns have a tendency to riot constitutes a sort of justification for the RNO which minorities are increasingly being given, since the authorities undoubtedly hope that the RNO will act to 'keep the lid on' this kind of behavior. This is particularly important because of the fact that whites do not have a high opinion of minorities, and are therefore inclined to speak their minds about the less pleasant facts of minority existence. The problem with this is not merely that minorities are cut off from important communications about their faults, but also that the RNO creates resentment in whites whose speech is suppressed, so that ultimately, the minority RNO may fail to keep the peace, and instead lead to much more virulent racial warfare than would have occurred without the RNO. This, indeed, was intended by the creators of the RNOs -- the liberals, and their driving force, Establishment Jewry -- with the view to better rend society asunder, since it was a major part of the communist program beginning in the late 1920s to sow hatred between blacks and whites. But whether we agree that this was a motive or not, the fact remains that Jews themnselves do not want to be criticised, not because of a short-term outlook, but rather because they do not want exposure of their war against gentiles -- a matter which we have explored in detail elsewhere. In particular, the most prominent part of this war is the Holocaust scam, a congeries of lies which has netted the Jewish establishment billions upon billions in guilt money; but there are all kinds of other scams, lies and dirty deeds -- from money manipulation and white slavery to genocide and government subversion -- that would have Establishment Jewry dangling from lampposts before nightfall if the ugly truth were just a bit better known.
But is there any moral claim to the RNO? We have partly answered this question by noting that survival depends on free speech as an error-correcting mechanism. Some would ask, however, if speech which did not communicate significant information, eg, insult, should fall under this rubric; but the anwswer is that even insult communicates to a person or group that they are disliked, and this, in itself, is important information, since it may well have the salubrious effect of forcing those who are insulted into a wee bit of self-examination, and will at the very least let them know who their enemies are.
One complication in examining the moral claim for RNOs is that morals are often confused with manners. Thus, while one might well feel that blacks as a group act like a bunch of apes, a mannerly person -- or someone who does not want to have his block knocked off -- would not go around telling blacks of his low opinion of their race. The point here is that manners are a way for individuals to get along with other individuals -- manners are, as JBR Yant has remarked, 'the lubricant of social intercourse'. But when it comes to one race fighting another for territory, power, rights, or whatever, the interaction is between groups rather than individuals, and different rules apply. There is always the hope, of course, that the leaders of different groups may settle their differences in a mannerly way, and in this sense manners may be relevant to group interactions; but in general, manners do not and cannot apply to intergroup conflicts, except perhaps in the sense of 'rules of war', which groups do not violate only from fear that other groups will also violate them.
One of the pressures in favor of the RNO is the fact that, in many societies -- perhaps even most -- an insult is looked on as a challenge to one's masculinity or integrity, and thus is something which must be responded to, often with violence. This is particularly true in the 'macho' latin societies, where establishing one's physical courage and vigor is de rigueur; but is not greatly different from American society of the not-too-distant past, where dueling was customary, and men often died for what they dared to say. What the macho culture fails to realize about insults, however, is that -- purely aside from the fact that violence does not decide who is right, but only who is left -- the ability to take insult without responding in kind, or with a response that invites friendship rather than fighting, is itself 'macho' in its own way, because it demonstrates a mature self-control and commitment to civilized ways that are absent from the insulter, and thus holds up his behavior as a contrast to that of a person who is civilized and self-controlled.
In conclusion it is worthy of note that there has been a particularly bizarre outcome of the RNO phenomenon in what I call the Pimple Republik of Kanada. This bizarrity arose in one of Kanada's so-called Human Rights Tribunals, a quasi-judicial phenomenon staffed with minority and liberal types which makes it easier for minorities to secure their RNOs by the effective legal bludgeoning of those accused of offending them.
The bizarrity in question arose in one of the hearings of Holocaust skeptic Ernst Zundel, and consisted of the ruling that 'truth is no defense' against the charge of offending a minority. It is almost mind-boggling to think that a tribunal in a country of supposedly Western principles would put sensitivity of feelings ahead of truth; and yet this was done explicitly and with no apologies, and no reversal by higher tribunals. The world has yet to recover from the rumbling earthquake of this ruling -- certainly Zundel has not, as the hatred for his views in Kanada and elsewhere is apparently going to keep him in jail for the rest of his life -- for the explicitness of the absurdity clearly labels the RNO as a kind of Alice-In-Wonderland phenomenon that is going to drive Western civilization into the ground if it is not stopped soon.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mel Fowler
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: Birdman's Weekly Letter #341: How Offensive Is Offensiveness?
September 6, 2005
Should Speech or other Behavior Be Criminalized Which, Although Presently Protected by the First Amendment,
Is Deemed By Some To Be Offensive ?
John, your very first line is ambiguous and therefore, easy to misunderstand. Instead of "a right not to be offended" I would suggest "a right of protection against behavior which, although protected by the Constitution, is deemed by some to be offensive."
There is so much offensive stuff mindlessly or intentionally hurled at us that, to maintain a semblance of peace of mind, we must constantly exercise our right not to be offended, although I don't call it that. Some folks might think we have no right not to stand up in righteous anger against those who offend us. After all, in a sense they too are being attacked. My response is that I choose to meet my enemy in a different forum than the vulgar, commonplace one of mutual offense and challenge.
My response to the phrase taken in the sense you intended is one I share with all normal American citizens, past and present: Within the context of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms the traditional laws providing legal redress for slander, libel, assaultive behavior and other forms of offensive conduct not protected by the Constitution are intended by the Constitution to define the line between "permissable" and impermissable" conduct. The civilized component of the American public has always, by and large, accepted this Constitutional provision as not only wise and adequate, but in fact, the best the world has ever seen and we, therefore, are just damn lucky to be Americans. I continue to accept that view wholeheartedly.
For about a century after the formation of the Republic, dueling continued to be a common practice as a device for resolving various forms of affront. The problem with dueling, in addition to causing the untimely deaths of a substantial number of men, was that it offended Constitutionally protected freedom of speech.
Anarchy is now emerging in America in spades. Because the United States establishment has shamelessly abandoned the enforcement of much of the criminal laws, forms of dispute-settling violence far worse than dueling are now common. For example, gang warfare.
The program to criminalize "offensive behavior or speech" heretofore protected by the First Amendment is a curse bestowed upon us by none other than Jews. Quite obviously, it has nothing whatsoever to do with sheltering the sensitive feelings of Jews or anyone else, who should not have come to America if they are unable to accept our traditional freedoms like all other Americans. To Americans - those who have not been irretrievably deracinated by Jewish propaganda - putting protection from offense ahead of Constitutional freedoms is an unspeakable, alien outrage and affront that, looking back over this episode in our National life, should have been resisted with everything we have - but unfortunately, was not.
It is truly amazing to me how many otherwise reasonably intelligent Americans fail to see what is right there under their noses: That is the long-pursued program of internationalist Jews, and the unprincipled scum within the American upper classes who have self-servingly thrown in with them, to destroy America along with other sovereignties and replace them with a global Talmudic dictatorship. The simple fact is that we are beset with a Jewish war to destroy us. That is the single and sufficient explanation of why America is being trashed by these devils. The sooner we recognize we are at war, the better.
I wrote this comment before reading beyond the first paragraph or two of your essay. Now, after posting this, I shall see what you have to say.
Homeland Security Command Structure
Top of Page | Home Page
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute