A great post by Lew Rockwell, the Freedom Crisis focuses on current attempts to regulate and eliminate free speech in public.
…Waldron ignores one vital issue. He is endeavoring to make a case for the regulation of hate speech. He cannot then fairly shift the burden of proof entirely to the side of his opponents, saying to them, “prove that hate speech does not much affect its victims.” It is for him to show that hate speech in fact has the dire effects he attributes to it. It is not out of the question that such speech sometimes does have bad effects, but it would seem obvious that we have here an empirical issue, one that requires the citation of evidence. Waldron so far as I can see fails to offer any, preferring instead to conjure up pictures of people who, seeing or hearing examples of hate speech, recall horrid scenes of past persecution. To what extent do people actually suffer from hate speech? Waldron shows little interest in finding out.
Waldron presents these hate-crime laws as if they limited only extreme expression of hate, e.g., suggestions that people in certain groups are subhuman or need to be forcibly expelled from society, if not done away with altogether
He says, “Does this [the requirement that we treat everyone with dignity] mean that individuals are required to accord equal respect to all their fellow citizens? Does it mean they are not permitted to esteem some and despise others? That proposition seems counterintuitive. Much of our moral and political life involves differentiation of respect.”
Hate-speech laws, Waldron says, do not ignore our rights to prefer some people to others. We further remain free to criticize minority groups, so long as we do not stray into the forbidden territory of outright hatred and denigration.
Waldron is not being honest here. Laws of the type Waldron champions have often been used to suppress not just vituperation but all sorts of un-PC opinions. For example, as James Kalb notes in his outstanding The Tyranny of Liberalism, “the High Court in Britain [in 2004] upheld the conviction and firing of an elderly preacher who held up a sign in a town square calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism, and immorality and was thrown to the ground and pelted with dirt and water by an angry crowd.
Those wishing further examples of how these laws work in practice may with profit consult the penetrating studies of Paul Gottfried, e.g., After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State and Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt . Here we are dealing not with a matter of speculative psychology but of incontrovertible fact.The Freedom Crisis, by Lew Rockwell
Murray did not agree with supposed “experts” who presume to tell the rest of us what opinions we are permitted to hold. He said:
In past centuries, the churches constituted the exclusive opinion-molding classes in the society. Hence the importance to the State and its rulers of an established church, and the importance to libertarians of the concept of separating church and State, which really means not allowing the State to confer upon one group a monopoly of the opinion-molding function.
In the 20th century, of course, the church has been replaced in its opinion-molding role, or, in that lovely phrase, the “engineering of consent,” by a swarm of intellectuals, academics, social scientists, technocrats, policy scientists, social workers, journalists and the media generally, and on and on. Often included, for old times’ sake, so to speak, is a sprinkling of social gospel ministers and counselors from the mainstream churches.
So, to sum up: the problem is that the bad guys, the ruling classes, have gathered unto themselves the intellectual and media elites, who are able to bamboozle the masses into consenting to their rule, to indoctrinate them, as the Marxists would say, with “false consciousness.” What can we, the right-wing opposition, do about it?
And so the proper strategy for the right wing must be what we can call “right-wing populism”: exciting, dynamic, tough, and confrontational, rousing and inspiring not only the exploited masses, but the often-shell-shocked right-wing intellectual cadre as well.The Freedom Crisis, by Lew Rockwell
I agree, but only in part. Multiple charismatic leaders and fighters would certainly be welcome in the Christian church (which, by the way, are not going to come from the seminaries!), but I am not interested in reaching the masses. I’d much rather reach out to and strengthen the Remnant, as noted in Albert J. Nock’s notable article Isaiah’s Job.
Instead of charismatic leaders, and their tendency to
- exalt themselves and
- push for control over others
I’d much go into Isaiah’s Digital Job: “A site for every remnant, and every remnant with a site!”
Better Christian thinking, coupled with greater Christian faith in God, growing Christian bravery, and multiplying more loving and self-sacrificial Christian bonds within the Body of Christ, is what will turn things around.
Charismatic leaders have a place, but only as servants – and I want lots of them with many followings and flocks, not One Unified Voice of the Faith. THAT position only belongs to Jesus Christ.
Certainly, we can’t waste time being defeatist, or destroy our spirit by looking to some Rapture escape. Marinov’s Decentor Ministries and Perpetuating Problems for Profit covers the failure of such retreatism nicely.
I also pointed at the real reason why they produced such negative results for all that money: namely, their pessimistic eschatology. “It shall be done to you according to your faith,” Jesus said in Matthew 9:29, and this principle applies to more than healing: “The righteous shall live by faith.”Perpetuating Problems for Profit, by Bojidar Marinov
Have faith in God, and put your muscle in the future – definitely including the care and direction of children. Recognise that Christ rules THIS world.
Don’t let the sterile statists silence you. They are the past: Christ is the future.
We know our mission. We know our message. We know the true nature and challenge of the job we have to do. Shall we stand and do it, or not?Will we do “Isaiah’s job” or not?, by Dr. Joel McDurmon