Identifying the Real Free Speech Problem

by Birdman Bryant

13 January 2005

The world has always been hostile to free speech, and continues to be hostile even in these supposedly-enlightened times. There is one place, however, where free speech is appreciated and cultivated -- for the most part anyway -- and while it is far from the world as many of us know it in our daily lives, it is nevertheless easily accessible. That place, of course, is cyberspace; and barring the collapse of our electronic infrastructure or the emergence of State-sponsored censorship that can outflank the warp-speed cyber-nerds and other geniuses of the Net Set, it stands as the future of human communication.

As my altered ego JBR Yant is fond of saying, 'Free speech is offensive speech'. What that means is that it is silly to say that conventional non- controversial speech is 'free speech', because nobody cares about this kind of speech. It is the offensive kind that people care about, and it is the offensive kind that raises the hackles of others, and often lowers the boom on the people who practice it.

But if free speech is offensive speech, it is also speech that comes in numerous varieties, and these varieties make it possible to turn what seems to be free speech into just conventional non-controversial speech. To explain, consider the fact that a denunciation of blacks or Jews when published in your Daily Birdcage Liner will raise a host of protests, but when published in a racialist newsletter will probably not raise an eyebrow. Thus what is supposedly free (and offensive) speech, when adequately compartmentalized, will transmogrify into conventional speech and thereby go unnoticed.

And that is precisely the formula by which our Founders expected free speech to be tolerated -- a formula which might be rendered in a paraphrase of the well-known Gestalt Prayer of Fritz Perls:

"I say my thing and you say your thing. I am not here to say my thing in your ear, and you are not here to say your thing in mine. I am not here to convert you, and you are not here to convert me. But if, by chance, I come over to your corner to hear you, or you come over to my corner to hear me, and in so doing we happen on a happy dialog and find one another, it's wonderful."

In case it is not clear, what I am getting at is this. The Founders knew that the principal bone of contention in matters of free speech was religion, and the reason it was a bone of contention is that everybody felt that he had to convert everybody else, or else the unconverted souls would come to grief in Eternal Damnation. But the Founders realized that if they could just get people to leave others alone to worship in their own way -- in short, if they could just get people to compartmentalize speech so that it would become 'conventional' within each compartment and thus not risk offending others by going outside the designated compartment, then no one would be offended and everyone could live in peace. It was helpful, of course, that the Founders were children of the Enlightenment -- the period where religion had begun to significantly recede in the face of scientific knowledge -- for this allowed them to see religion for what it really was: Not a God-directed harvesting of souls to spare them Eternal Damnation, but rather a human-directed effort by a variety of religious organizations competing with each other for power and prestige.

The Founders' trick of compartmentalizing speech so it would not be offensive has had a long and useful history, but the emergence of the mass media striving for a universal market has decompartmentalized speech, with the result that it has ceased to be free. There has, of course, been an effort to keep speech free by means of specialized publications, but the expense of mailing and advertising has made life difficult for the purveyors of such attempts, to say nothing of the opposition of those who find such newsletters 'offensive'.

All this has changed with the emergence of the Internet, however, where the costs of communication and publication are virtually nil. The result is that the Net is one big compartment of lots of little compartments which is differentiated from the conventional media by being free (and offensive), whereas the conventional media are not. And the upshot of this is that the conventional media are dying. They still have the old fogies as an audience because the old fogies aren't computer-savvy and aren't about to become so; but the old fogies are dying off, and the youngsters, who are being teethed on cyberware, will never go back to the conventional media because they are discovering, thanks to the Net itself, that the conventional media have woven a tapestry of lies and deceits that will not bear serious scrutiny, no matter how many media talking heads grind their gums in favor of it.

More particularly, what America is experiencing -- and to a certain extent, the rest of the world as well -- is a bad case of split personality -- a sort of cognitive dissonance in which the lies of omission and commission of the conventional media are being challenged by the Internet in a kind of War of the Titans. The result can only be that the conventional media are going to find themselves increasingly marginalized because of the increasingly untenable positions which they embrace, and because of their inability to achieve their desideratum of a universal audience in competition with the compartmentalization of the Internet.

The way of the future, then -- other things being equal -- is that the conventional media will either die or cease to be conventional, while the Internet will grow. But the ceteris paribus condition may well not hold if the censors have their way, for these folks want the Net to be a universal medium whose message is theirs alone. It is not enuf for them to choose the sites they wish to read -- they have to choose the sites for everyone else as well. The excuses they make for their behavior are of course the same as for all censorship -- perversion, immorality, treason, social upheaval, political necessity, war, the sky is falling, you name it. Oh, and always 'for the children'. (Spare us, O Lord.) The problem which the censors are faced with, however, is that the peons have tasted freedom -- and in fact are now accustomed to freedom -- and are therefore not likely to accept confinement in the conventional media straitjacket of their own accord.

We have heard rumors that a 'new' Internet is being prepared -- one that the Censors can control, and which they will force everyone else to use by filling the current Net so full of viruses, worms and trojans that electronic protection will become impossible. I myself have asked the question of at what point will it become so time-consuming to download virus definitions that there will be no time for anything else; but this will perhaps be solved by such technical breakthrus as larger information pipelines (as we are now seeing in cable), smarter software, and more efficient algorithims for recognizing malware that has not yet been identified. But however this struggle plays itself out, we can see that this is a case of what JBR Yant was referring to when he noted that civilization is in danger because technology has advanced faster than morality.

Now one of the main reasons that free speech is in danger is because there is no appreciation of the fact that, to again use the words of Yant, "truth is a matter of opinion". Instead, everyone and his brother thinks that HE has the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth, and will be damned if he lets anyone else's truth overwhelm his own without a fight. It is, of course, quite simple to prove the truth of Yant's statement (or is it just his opinion?), to wit, that if A and B have different opinions, then there is simply no way to tell whose opinion is right -- or indeed, to tell whether either is. We may of course be more willing to believe a distinguished scientist than a country hick, but on the other hand our readiness to believe is simply our opinion, and does nothing to prove whose opinion is correct. Nor does it do to check for logical fallacies or empirical falsehoods; for while exposure of same may prove persuasive to many, such revelations can do nothing to prove -- in some Hegelian Absolutist sense, at least -- that one opinion is right and another wrong; for in spite of pounds of proof and liters of logic, opinions remain opinions, and have not the least obligation to change no matter WHAT the conditions, thank you.

But all this is really only half the problem, because even when people realize that they don't possess quite the truth they thought they had -- if indeed they have the acuity to recognize such a condition -- they will still fight others who question them because they have to protect the most sensitive of all parts of their anatomy, the ego. Even those of us who are the strongest and the most committed to truth have a distinct difficulty in standing up and saying we were wrong, particularly where we have a heavy emotional, intellectual or other investment in our (wrong) opinion.

But if we support free speech and despise censorship, we must nevertheless admit that censorship has a point, and in fact that censorship is something that all of us practice most of the time. To be specific, unless we are thoroughly provoked, we do not tell people how ugly they look or how awful they sound or smell, altho such thoughts go thru our minds all the time; so in effect, we practice self-censorship of the most thoroughgoing sort. What is more, we expect others to practice it, and if they do not, we are not likely to seek or tolerate their company. Looking at things this way, then, we can understand HL Mencken's remark to the effect that truth is something so valuable that we are reluctant to share it with others.

The lesson to be drawn from the above observations is that free speech is a luxury which we cannot often afford to practice. But is it necessary beyond the purely emotional one of getting things off our chest? The answer of course is that it is: Without free speech, we cannot as a rule hope to know the truth, and particularly the ugly truth (as truth often is); but without knowing the truth, there is little hope of correcting our improper or maladptive behavior, and thus we are impeded in our efforts to survive and prosper. From this, then, we see that free speech is something to be practiced at the proper time and place, while censorship of one degree or another is required the rest of the time. Free speech is critical to our survival because it lets us know whether we are following the right course; but censorship (and particularly SELF-censorship) is also necessary in order that we do not unnecessarily hurt the feelings of others, but instead help to insure that they remain friendly and cooperative. Censorship, indeed, is at the root of good manners, and, as JBR Yant has remarked, manners are the lubricant of social intercourse.

But if it is only common sense to recognize that free speech must be tempered with censorship, it remains to answer how these two necessities of human existence must be balanced. We have already pointed out that the media, in attempting to achieve a universal audience, have slipped into the abyss of near-complete censorship, anodynity and irrelevance, and to this we must add the disheartening observation that the law has increasingly embraced censorship for much the same reason as the media have. That reason, more specifically, is the multicultural milieu in which we have been increasingly forced to live by a world-gone-mad with liberal sentiments which declare that all men are equal, and then enforce that equality with police power when it turns out to be nonexistent. Free speech advocates are here faced with a sort of double whammy: Not only must they avoid hurting the feelings of the unequal equals, but they must also avoid telling the Powers-That-Be that they are wrong in their seemingly- well-meaning sentiments, and not merely wrong, but are leading the nations of the West into a multicultural maelstrom from which there may be no recovery because, once the population of the white West is mixed with that of other (unequal) races and the white genome disappears, so will the culture which white men have built, along with all the institutions, traditions and amenities that white intelligence and white energy have produced. More specifically, the West is not just advanced scientifically and technically, but also socially: Western man has produced not merely everything from superhighways to supercomputers, but a system of democratic rule which has allowed the flourishing of individual achievement and the growth of wealth beyond the dreams of even the grandest monarch of only a century or so ago. But it is not just that this system has been achieved by white men, but it has been sustained by them; and in particular has shown no ability to be transferred to the black race, as the lesson of post-Colonial Africa has shown; and only very limited ability to be transferred to the brown or yellow races, with Japan the single possible exception.

In noting that Western law has increasingly embraced censorship as a response to multiculturalism, what we meant is that censorship is necessary to keep the races from hurting one another's feelings. This is especially important in the case of blacks, who have an amply-demonstrated tendency to riot and burn down the town whenever they are upset, or for that matter, whenver they are ebullient. This would of course not happen -- or at least not nearly as much -- if blacks were 'compartmentalized' -- ie, segregated into their own area or country where they would not be subjected to the 'racist' comments and behavior of whites who can hardly be expected to keep from remarking or acting upon the fact that blacks as a group are inferior -- but multiculturalism is an act of decompartmentalization, and decompartmentalization means conflict.

One of the most profound and shocking examples of censorship in recent years first reared its ugly head during one of the so-called 'Human Rights Tribunal' hearings of famous revisionist gadfly Ernst Zundel who for many years has been persecuted and prosecuted in the Pimple Republik of Kanada for his beliefs, and who was kidnapped more than a year ago from his new home in Tennessee with the aid and connivance of American authorities and transported back to to the PRK where, as of this writing, he has been held in solitary confinement for more than a year as a 'security threat', the object of his kidnapping being to deport him to Germany where his 'thought crimes' will probably keep him in prison for the remainder of his life. The censorship matter I refer to is the declaration by the Tribunal, in response to one of Zundel's statements, that, when it comes to free speech, truth is no defense. That's right, folks -- in the Pimple Republik of Kanada -- and other places as well -- true statements are forbidden if they hurt certain protected minorities' feelings. I call this shocking, but of course it isn't really; for the act of decompartmentalizing people, as has been done in creating multiculturalism (the multicultural cancer is at an advanced stage in the PRK), means that people will more frequently encounter offensive speech, and in order to make the multicult work (or seem to work), the lid must be kept on offensive speech lest the melting pot become a boiling one.

We have looked at free speech and found that it works best when compartmentalized. We have also noted that the same thing is true for people -- conflict is significantly reduced when they are compartmentalized -- ie, segregated -- because (among other things) the free speech of one group will tend to offend other groups, particularly in the case of racial, ethnic and religious groups. In fact, the better part of the liberal program -- integration, big government, opposition to states' rights, opposition to gun ownership, anti-hate laws, affirmative action, welfare, easy immigration, open borders, Turd-world out-sourcing, unilateral disarmament, world government, and other things I have undoubtedly failed to mention -- is in every case an attempt to decompartmentalize, and thus constitutes a prescription for conflict and ultimately for totalitarian control which will be the only way that the conflicts engendered by decompartmentalization can be kept from rending asunder the social fabric. Totalitarian world government is not exactly the liberal desideratum, but the Power Elite have embraced liberalism because they know that this is the quickest and most efficient way to create totalitarian world government while appearing to want exactly the opposite; and this is why liberalism -- altho despised and rejected by most of the population, has grown into an 800-pound gorilla that threatens the world with rape and rapine. This, then, explains why our political masters have pushed multiculturalism upon an unwilling population with a vigor that resembles religious zeal, and with an inattention to its destructive effects that suggests willful blindness.

And herein hangs a tale; for there are many of us who believe that multiculturalism, the suppression of free speech, and most of the rest of the liberal agenda which is increasingly being referred to as the New World Order, derives not just from willful blindness, but from an actual conspiracy intended to destroy the West and the race which produced it -- the white race. What is more, an important part of this conspiracy is an effort to paint conspiracy theory itself as benighted and deluded, a strategy clearly intended to ensure that no serious researcher will give it the investigative attention that it deserves. And even worse, not only are the media in unfriendly hands so that the opposition can never use them to present its case (For a very thorough detailing of this matter, see "Who Rules America" at, but the great mass of people have been conditioned by those same media -- much after the fashion of Pavlov's dogs -- to reject in knee-jerk fashion anything smacking of 'conspiracy theory', 'racism', or any of the other politically-incorrect bugbears of the NWO agenda.

And well they might, because if one makes a careful examination of the NWO agenda, as I have done on my webpage (, he will discover that every important aspect of this conspiracy (or 'working together', if you reject using the concept of conspiracy) is in the hands of members of a single distinctive ethnic minority -- Jews. It shouldn't be necessary to add that this does not mean that 'all Jews' are members of the conspiracy, or even more than a few of them, but it does mean that the NWO possesses a distinctively Jewish flavor. Furthermore, the Jewish involvement in this conspiracy embraces virtually every important element of Organized Jewry, so that -- even if 'the Jew in the street' is innocent of involvement -- it remains a fact that the organizations which claim to represent him are the prime movers of the NWO.

It is, of course, hopeless to argue the case for all this here -- it is far too complex for that. But the fact that such a powerful case can be made for the existence of the NWO and 'Jewish conspiracy theory' is an essential element in the matter of free speech, both on the Net and in society at large. We see this especially clearly in the obviously-Jewish-inspired laws to suppress Holocaust revisionism (it is illegal in most Western countries to question the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holocaust), but also in the laws against 'hate' which have become fixtures of most Western judicial systems in the last half-century, and which have also undoubtedly come about as a result of Jewish pressure to suppress expressions of Jew- hatred. Indeed, it seems hardly an accident that these laws -- along with multiculturalism, political correctness, open borders and the numerous other aspects of the NWO agenda which have pulled up by the roots so many long-held traditions of race, family, sexuality and culture -- have all quite suddenly grown up virtually everywhere in the Western world in the half-century following the extinction of the last major political effort to curb Jewish power (nazism); and this is a bold testament not merely to Jewish power, but to Jewish conspiracy and control on an international scale.

What all this means is that the free speech issue is largely a Net issue (because that's the only place you will find it both practiced and discussed), that the Net issue largely concerns controversial issues -- primarily government corruption, race and groups, and conspiracy theory -- which the Power Elite does not want seriously investigated, and that these three issues themselves largely commingle into the single umbrella issue of what is usually called the Jewish Question. The result is simply that censorship cannot be intelligently addressed or usefully investigated without viewing the issue thru the lens of the Jewish Question; so while much purple prose may be generated by generalities about the desirability and morality of free speech, there will be no advancement on this topic until we start addressing the one question -- the Jewish Question -- which underlies and informs all others. This of course is impossible in the major media -- the Jews have made it so by both owning the media and controlling it from within -- and it is impossible even in the compartmentalized media -- mainly the Internet -- in virtually every country of the world save America, where it nevertheless remains under severe pressure. What is more, free speech is beset by two major ironies: First, the issue of free speech cannot be addressed unless it can first be achieved; and second, the real issue underlying free speech -- the Jewish Question -- is almost unknown because the Jews have been so efficient in seeing that free speech is suppressed.


If you want to know more about me or my 40 books, please visit my website at

Back to VNN Main Page