Free Speech, but Only if You’re a Leftist

With the presently overwhelming surge of “multi-culturalism”, feminism, gay “rights”, and all other forms of “social justice,” one might seem justified in thinking that freedom was expanding in the United States.  One might think that the free exchange of ideas was increasing, not only with the “social justice” movement, but also with the ever-increasing amount of information that is available to an ever-increasing amount of people through the internet and social media.

One might even think that with the amount of profanity on the radio, sex on TV and violence in video games, that censorship is decreasing, or even possibly dead. But despite these understandable assumptions, nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, that censorship in the West is at an all-time high.  People censor themselves, sometimes without even knowing it, in order to avoid the social stigma of being hateful in some form or another.  The major media organizations that flood our consciousness with a constant supply of “information” are censoring anything that does not agree with the ideology those who control them want to promote, or that threatens their objectives.

European countries, Canada, Australia, and even America are all passing laws that directly target speech they feel threatened by.

But why?  And why are all the things that would be traditionally censored in Western society now being allowed to go unchecked?

Because those that are in control of institutions of academia, the media, and governments in the west are purposefully attempting to bring about the destruction of Western civilization and put us under their complete control in a Marxist society ruled by a dictatorship they control or are benefited by.  That’s a pretty bold statement, I know.  Some are undoubtedly going to be skeptical, so let’s look at the evidence for my assertion.

First, it’s important to note that Marx and Engels wanted to put the entire world under communist rule, which would require abolishing national sovereignty.  They recognized that there would be resistance to this, by those that were in control of the capitalist system that they sought to topple, and by those they felt were enslaved by it.  They believed, or at least professed to believe, that the reasons why most working class people in a capitalist system would resist their goals was because of conditioning throughout their life beginning at birth.

This conditioning would start at birth because they would be raised in a family, being cared for, or psychologically traumatized by, depending upon your beliefs, their parents.  This experience would inculcate in them a belief and acceptance of a hierarchal system.  They somehow failed to notice that every socialist country to ever exist brutally suppressed its people.  But then again, they didn’t have the benefit of history that we have now.

They also believed, and with good reason, that those same parents that were traumatizing their children while caring for them and raising them would also instill into them the values that they believed in themselves.  Namely, moral values stemming from a belief in God.

These values were unacceptable to Marx and Engels.  They recognized that if they wanted to bring about the end of capitalism they were going to have to bring about the end of the family and of religion.  They talked about this in Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto, where they state that abolishment of the family is an “infamous proposal of the Communists”, that “the working men have no country”, and also, that  “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis”.

So without even needing to get to the third chapter, we see that communists want to destroy religion, the family, countries, and national borders.  Do we see any of this being promoted in academia, the media, and by the state with descent being censored?

Let’s take a look at the first, and perhaps the most ironic area that we see Marxist values being promoted and everything else being censored: academia.

Just days ago a pro-life student’s group was denied official status at Strathclyde University in Scotland. Why? The pro-life students were told that the University was concerned that the pro-life students would “harass” and “intimidate” other students.

Across the pond in America, at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, angry pro-choice feminists destroyed a display created by pro-life students. Rather than reprimand vandals, the university’s democratic society praised the violent action by the feminists.  Somehow this wasn’t seen as intimidation or harassment.  A similar incident took place at Southern Methodist University in Texas, and a similar response was given.

Of course, that’s just religion, or arguably family, which is not the same as wanting to destroy national sovereignty.  Surely students these days appreciate national sovereignty since they want the government to pay for their student loans, right?

Wrong. From South Carolina high schools to UC Irvine, the American flag has been attacked by students and faculty.  Matthew Guevara of UC Irvine claimed that seeing the American flag at school made some students feel so uncomfortable that they didn’t even want to go inside. He says it represents “hate speech”.  He received support from his fellow students, 60% of them. One might wonder how these same students feel about the Mexican flag which is so often seen at anti-Trump protests?

Moving on, conservative speakers like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannapoulus have been banned from multiple college campuses across America.  The reason given for both of them is “hate speech”.  For those that don’t know, Ben Shapiro is a practicing Jew living in America, and Milo Yiannapoulus is a practicing homosexual living in the UK, so they both belong to groups of people who are typically the recipients of “hate speech”.

They are both conservative though, that’s what makes them hateful.  Both of them regularly expose the lies of the wage gap, Islam as a peaceful religion, and “white privilege”, which is what leftist use to replace the communist nomenclature “bourgeois” with these days.

This is why the left must support Black Lives Matter and Islam, because they are not Western white movements, they oppose Western values and they are deleterious to the fabric of Western society.  Anyone that exposes the truth that blacks in America are 200 times more likely to violently attack a white person than a white is to attack a black person is not fond of statistical analysis, they are racists.

Likewise, anyone that asks why Muslim immigrants are being shoveled into areas that the native population doesn’t want them is a white nationalist.  Both accusations have been hurled at Shapiro and Yiannapoulus, which is hilarious given that they are so antitypical for conservatives according to the leftist narrative that says Jews and gays would never think that way, only racist whites.

Ben Stein made a documentary entitled “Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed”, in which he makes the clear case that anyone who dares to deviate from a hard line stance that Darwinian theory is unquestionably true will be fired and black listed.

To be clear, I’m not talking about professors bringing in the Bible and teaching from Genesis that God created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden on the sixth day.  I’m talking about professors and highly credentialed educators that have been fired simply for suggesting that Darwinian theory is inadequate as a scientific theory to fully explain the origin of life.  Marxists can’t allow God into the picture.

But those not currently attending college are not immune from the forced feeding of leftist propaganda and the censoring of everything else.  Anyone that is ever exposed to any mainstream media, including social media is immediately bombarded with Marxist ideology repackaged as intellectual progressive thinking, or political correctness.

Every major media outlet in America, CNN, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent Fox News, called now president elect Donald Trump a racist for wanting to build a wall on America’s southern border.  Never mind that Mexican is a nationality and not a race, or that Mexicans are largely the descendants of Europeans that slaughtered the natives, national borders are not racist.  But, they are detrimental to communist goals, as Marx and Engel stated, “the working men have no country”.

These days, entertainers have a loud voice that can give them powerful influence, even if the public doesn’t know where they got their ideas from.  Bill Nye, “the science guy” has said that people who deny that anthropogenic climate change is a reality should be imprisoned.  “Anthropogenic” being the key word there, because it’s not enough that one is willing to entertain the idea that the climate could be changing, one has to accept as absolute truth that humans are responsible for it and accept the UN’s proposed solutions in order to satisfy the left.

Why?  Because all of the suggested solutions to fight climate change, which may or may not be happening, and may or may not be caused by humans if it is happening, and may or may not be a bad thing if it is both happening and being caused by humans, all of their solutions are Marxist.

They want to limit private ownership, even completely abolish private property, of course the state has to be given unlimited powers to do this, and all resources will be rationed to the humans that are allowed to live by this new god-like state.

But what about social media?  You can always voice your opinion on Facebook or Twitter right?  Sure, and as long as your opinions are Marxist, nobody will censor them. But if they’re not?

Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg was caught on a “hot mic” telling leftist German leader Angela Merkel that they (Facebook) are working on censoring posts that voiced criticism of the massive “wave of Syrian refugees” flooding into Germany and other European nations.  But posts calling for the death of white police officers can be found in abundance.  Apparently that’s not “hate speech”.

In fairness, in a free society based on Western values, corporations should be free to say whatever they want to say, to promote whatever ideals those who run those corporations have, and to censor ideals that oppose theirs.  But are nations themselves, Western nations, really promoting Marxism and censoring descent by force through the rule of law and not just asking Facebook to do it?  Yes!

Canada has passed “hate speech” laws that seem to only be enforced or reported on when the victim is Muslim or homosexual.  The vast majority of these crimes fall under the category of “mischief” and are not violent attacks but usually involve passing out literature or holding signs that offend someone.

Because Canada is so concerned with offending people based on their religion that they passed laws prohibiting homeschooling parents (who tend to be overwhelmingly Christian) from teaching their children that homosexuality is morally wrong, and of course homosexuality and the transgender lifestyle is being promoted in the public schools.

It has been deemed to be “hateful” to suggest that a man who thinks he is a woman is mentally ill, thus thinking that one is a gender other than the one that they are is not treated medically as mental illness.  Yet, there is no group with a higher suicide rate than transexuals, only the severely mentally ill have comparable rates.

But, this is blamed on “hate speech” all over again and we are told that the suicides are a result of persecution.  Even though blacks who were enslaved and Jews in the holocaust had lower suicide rates.  So, these people’s mental illness goes untreated in the name of “love”.  Not because Marxist care at all about LGBT folks, but because they want to promote anything that erodes at the family unit.

Australia has passed laws making it a crime to speak out against Islam.  Some might suggest that I am being misleading and the law says that it is a crime to vilify anyone because of their religion and that someone would be prosecuted for vilifying a Christian too.

Well, what did Australian Prime Minister Malcomb Turnbull say?  He said, “It is important for us to promote and encourage Islam.”  Is this because Turnbull loves Muslims?  Doubtful, it’s more likely because Turnbull likes anything that threatens western values and western society and gives him a moral guise to cover for his attack on free speech which would be critical of his government.

Sometimes the censorship isn’t done officially, or legally, and then officially denied.  With words that are politically inconvenient connotations can just be edited out as though they never existed.  And where is this sort of censorship being performed?  North Korea in foreign media that is critical of dictatorships?

Maybe, but I was thinking more along the lines of earlier this year when the White House (Dan’s note: under Obama) “edited” the audio of French president Hollande in order to remove the words “Islamic terrorism” from the English translation of the French president’s remarks, and then they claimed that it was a technical difficulty. So when events don’t match your narrative, just edit them so they are little less inconvenient.

Ironically enough, after selectively editing White House audio, the most frightening case of state based censorship becoming the law of the land is taking shape right now in America.  After Wikileaks released John Podesta’s emails, a theory developed that there was a code in some of these emails that substituted words that would have had clear pedophiliac meaning with words about food.

Of course, these accusations are denied, well sort of, they aren’t even addressed directly so in a way they aren’t being denied.  Instead, Hilary Clinton and most of the talking heads on corporate news stations are calling for “private and public” action to prevent the spread of “fake news”.

Now, let’s just say that “Pizzagate” isn’t true and that Podesta and the Clintons are not perverts of the worst kind, who is going to be put in charge of determining what is real and what is fake?  For those that read Orwell’s 1984, you would know that the Ministry of Truth will handle that.  And that is the obvious conclusion to Clinton advocating for public action to prevent “fake news”.  That means that the state will determine what is true and what is false, along with corporate news of course.

But don’t worry comrade, things have always been like this! They aren’t getting worse, cops kill more blacks than whites even though the CDC’s statistics say otherwise, homosexuality and transgender lifestyles are healthy even though they have astronomical suicide rates. Multiculturalism will be a boost to European economies, Islam is a religion of peace, climate change is happening and your property is the cause of it (even though the evidence has been falsified as with “climate gate”).

There is no God, and therefore no basis for morals, but we still need to be concerned about the plight of everyone the left tells us to be concerned with (especially polar bears). Western society is evil, even though Western values are always used as a measurement of how evil Western society is, and no other society is ever presented as a viable alternative.

And Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia.

20 survival items ebook cover

Like what you read?

Then you're gonna love my free PDF, 20 common survival items, 20 uncommon survival uses for each. That's 400 total uses for these innocent little items!

Just enter your primary e-mail below to get your link. This will also subscribe you to my newsletter so you stay up-to-date with everything: new articles, ebooks, products and more!

By entering your email, you consent to subscribe to the Modern Survival Online newsletter. We will not spam you.

3 thoughts on “Free Speech, but Only if You’re a Leftist”

  1. Hello to ya’all from Canada!
    Ya just gotsta read ‘dis crap!

    (Here are a few quotes from above link i just cited; most coming from comments section. Sorry, i did not give the commenters name each time).

    “Jordan Peterson: That’s right. I don’t recognize that. I don’t recognize another person’s right to decide what words I’m going to use”.

    “He’s taking a stand against politeness being legislated, and taking the position that it is our own responsibility to regulate our vocabulary choices rather than the right or responsibility of a governing body.”

    “Professor Peterson is alerting us to real dangers in legislation or social policies that would sanction individuals for not using the right pronouns in interactions with other people. Not farfetched as it is already happening in places like New York, where we are told by authorities that there are 31 genders that need to be respected and who can decide what pronoun is to be used when referring to any of them.”

    “You may see yourself one way but no one has the right to decide how I view someone. To put laws in place that require you to conform to another person’s opinion is essentially moral slavery”.

    “the issue isn’t whether it’s a good idea to use gender-neutral pronouns or not. The issue is whether it makes sense to use the law to enforce it.”

    “although the bill does not mention pronouns specifically, it opens the door to people being charged on the grounds that failure to use the “correct” pronoun could be seen as a form of discrimination, and therefore be actionable.”

    “I would agree as far as the promoun issue goes. Hell they can hang “I am “trangender ” signs around their necks if they want to…I don;t care/. What I object to is the Trudeau’s government passing a law that says I have to use certain words and if I don’t I am breaking the law. Have we not got enough government in our lives?”

    (yet another crap law in the making)!

     bill c-16 people….

    Good article…keep ’em ‘a coming please!


    You just might wanna watch this sweet little diddy of a video BEFORE IT GETS BANNED!
    (remember the net aint under usa control no more:

    “On his way out of the door Barack Obama will have wholly ceded over control of the Internet to UNIDO, (United Nations Industrial Development Organization).

    When it is far too late for anyone to do anything about it, history will someday record that Barack Hussein Obama hijacked public access to the Internet before leaving office.

    Why he decided to hand over control of the Internet, to an unknown conglomerate of “international stakeholders—held by the United States for all 18 years of ICANN existence—five weeks before Election 2016, remains a dark-sided riddle.”

    -(above quote cited from this link):


    Bill Warner, PhD: Jihad vs Crusades

  3. I support free speech, and feel times are short where fine internet sites like this, amongst others, will likely be completely shut down or censored.

    It is TIME for the so called “silent majority”, to BLOOMING WELL SPEAK UP…

    This phenomenon called the internet, is well and likely
    going down soon, and things will never be the same.

    SHAME ON YOU Mr. Obama!

    Shame on you.


Leave a Comment