The Absurdity Of Modern Free Speech


In light of yet another Talmudic spectacle of intentional despoilment of any respect America might have left in the world, isn’t it time to admit that from within the arsenal of complex patriotic weapons used as universal excuses for downright bad behavior, the free speech card has been well overplayed?

Watching the people of America being strung along like fiddles in quite forced romantic support for an at best mediocre movie before its release through a poorly-staged conspiracy worthy only of the lowest freak show display was painful. Despite the false dialectic of public outcry created by the now infamous ‘corporations are people too’ comment by Mitt Romney last election cycle – ridiculous not in its insanity but in its utterly soul-saturating truth – the collective dichotomy has now been sublimely shifted into supporting a corporation’s free speech in its release of a mainstream movie. For the doctrine of free speech is equally yoked in natural and artificial persons, thanks to the virtually unlimited exceptionalism given to the chartered 1st amendment.

No such demand would have been artificially created, plugged, and asserted through the magic of media trickery if the movie at question would have been a true historical documentary relating to a sympathetic view of Hitler and the easily proved false-history pertaining to the so-called “Holocaust.” In fact, even the very thought of public support for “free speech” as an excuse for the desire of making and releasing such a documentary film without protest or political barrier, provable as every fact would be, is a generally repugnant public opinion. For when push comes to shove, the responsibility that is implied in the creation of and thus use of this notion of free speech is being disappeared and then reappeared in the legal setting whenever it serves the interests of powerful men in their rewriting of current and past history.

Would a “comedy” put forth by the same two Jewish film-maker/actors and by the same Jewish-run media corporations with the plot of assassinating specifically the current President Obama through clandestine, covet means be acceptable free speech as well in this free speech society? By the current standards regarding “The Interview” movie it would. How about a snuff film about stabbing Mother Theresa to a bloody pulp with a crucifix, or better yet a splintery Dreidel? Does the amorphous, ambiguous term “free speech” also somehow protect such efforts in the purview of public opinion?

The question I pose today is a difficult one… Is free speech really to be considered an unrequited absolute?

Bearing in mind that the term “free speech” is not in any way defined in its constitutional proclamation in the articled 1st amendment, does the rational man truly believe that this is the legal version of anything goes? Can there be law without a foundation of some moral compass as a limit to the absoluteness of that law, especially when we consider that we are all forced to accept that even the most immoral speech is publicly acceptable because public opinion says all speech must be free and accepted?

And how soon will the element of freedom turn into the chains of subjection as the gavel of the supreme court resounds the new law that free speech and expression of opinion about certain Zionist factions only equals hate speech, as has happened in so many other “civilized” nations?

From both a logical and Biblical perspective, the answer is touted in support of the duties invoked by natural law (God’s law-order) to do no harm rather than to just accept this supposed unabashed liberty-without-responsibility assumed in the modern interpretations of constitutional theory. Here, Rousas John Rushdoony says it best in his foreshadowing warnings:

–=–

“…[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.”

“Whenever freedom is made into the absolute, the result is not freedom but anarchism. Freedom must be under law, or it is not freedom…. Only a law-order which holds to the primacy of God’s law can bring forth true freedom, freedom for justice, truth, and godly life. Freedom as an absolute is simply an assertion of man’s “right” to be his own god; this means a radical denial of God’s law-order. “Freedom” thus is another name for the claim by man to divinity and autonomy. It means that man becomes his own absolute”

–Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law
(The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581, 583–

–=–

As a rational man or woman, can the reader truly accept that this simple term “freedom of speech” was intended to equate to freedom from responsibility, ethics, respect, and from the very notion of the law itself? Can laws against such freedom of speech such as slander and perjury truly be subservient and bypassed by the right to free speech itself?

We have certainly defined the word freedom before on this blog, and so we know that political freedom is under the state of a false legal capacity. No matter which dictionary of law and court opinion we open, we find the same definition of the term.

FREEDOMLiberty; the right to do what is not forbidden by law. Freedom does not preclude the idea of subjection to law; indeed, it presupposes the existence of some legislative provision, the observance of which insures freedom to us, by securing the like observance from others. –Bouvier’s 1856

FREEDOM – The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery. The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or prohibition than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen. –Black’s Law 1st

–=–

The fact is that this notion of “free speech” in the constitution needs to be taken for its intent, not in its stretched out modern usage as an excuse for immorality and irresponsibility.

To be free in speech means to not be forced to say something against your will. This negative right, with regards to the legal setting, is designed to avoid false witness under coercion and to avoid self-incrimination, which means that the law cannot harm a man for speaking his mind or even the truth as a defendant or witness. Here though is assumed a sense of personal control and responsibility with our speech that it should not defame or arbitrarily defraud another, which the laws are clear to punish in perjury. And this free speech doctrine was not intended to apply to all aspects of personal life, only to political ones regarding rights and duties.

Does this specific notion of freedom from being forced to say something against ones will really imply too that a man (as a citizen) must thus allow any degrading, debilitating, slanderous opinion or untruth to be uttered at any time, tossing personal responsibility out the window while hiding under the false notion that all speech is protected by the god of the constitution; the god without substance known as We, The People?

This author believes the answer here to be no, at least with regards to the intent of the notion of what this doctrine of freedom of speech is with intent designed to protect. The concept of law is not designed to be used to force all speech upon others, any more than it is designed to force actions and political participation.

Frederick Nymeyer in Progressive Calvinism stated that:

“What gold is to money, the law of God is to liberty.”

When comparing this notion of personal responsibility with the modern perversion of the seemingly unlimited liberty of modern free speech, one must question just where the foundation of that doctrine may be found? Just as our U.S. dollar, as an unlimited currency, has no foundation in intrinsic physicality or morality (i.e. it is not “backed” by a foundation of gold) and is therefore without actual limit in its liberty of production, the currency of free speech in its projected unlimited capacity seems to be as well without foundation or principle in the modern era – totally misused, abused, and out of control! Both of these things seem to be killing us slowly; the bankrupting not only of our bank accounts but of our prosperity, integrity, and national reputation as well.

The public relations spectacle that was the Sony/Franco/Rogen/North Korea/Obama public opinion dilemma, as poorly played as it was, was quite effectual not only in positively publicizing the immorality and societal subversion of the Zionist Protocols of the Elder’s agenda, but also in the art of the swaying of public opinion without a day in court. It was a hoax of hoaxes; a successful subversion of reality and lawful intent. It was a typical American meme from the meme machine of Hollywood proper.

Should free speech be religiously used to protect all forms of speech?

Should this unlimited doctrine be protected even when the speech itself is offensive to law and freedom itself?

Should free speech be allowed to intrude upon the private rights of others?

And at what point does free speech become indistinguishable with forced speech, where you must hear it pumped into your living room and at work 1984 style and thus pretend to agree with it because the law forces you to accept and live by it as an unlimited right guarded by the thought police?

When is freedom actually redefined as objectified tyranny?

You decide…

And after your own contemplations, ask yourself why you allow others to define what is right and just in your own mind, what is correct and moral by the justice of legal code, and why it is that “entertainment” is now a legitimate title and excuse for pure unadulterated corruption and subversion protected by law?

The answer is simple and clear in all cases. Government is the supreme god (magistrate) from which all public opinion now flows.

MAG’ISTRATE, noun [Latin magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate as is the President of the United States. But the word is more particularly applied to subordinate officers, as governors, intendants, prefects, mayors, justices of the peace, and the like. The magistrate must have his reverence; the laws their authority. –Webster’s 1828

GODnoun – 2. A false god; a heathen deity; an idol. 3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge; an angel… 4. Any person or thing exalted too much in estimation, or deified and honored as the chief good.- verb transitiveTo deify. –Webster’s 1828

–=–

Is the law exalted too high? How about the magistrates as the law-givers and administrators? Do you as a subject of the body politic (e pluribus unum) even recognize that you worship the law of the gods as magistrates?

As the saying goes: Change your god, change your law… before God’s law becomes illegal.

P.S… This is what responsible speech looks like!!!

.

–Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com)
–Thursday, January 8th, 2015

Leave a comment

13 Comments

  1. RoyInNC

     /  January 8, 2015

    Excellent post. For many, free speech has come to mean “unbridled speech of any nature”. The last couple of generations of American’s seem to fail to understand the responsibility that must accompany exercising this right, generally speaking. Some even believe that it covers speech in the courtroom that most of us would agree constitutes contempt of court. We Americans have so lost our way.

    Reply
    • RoyInNC

       /  January 8, 2015

      Linda, thanks for making this video available. Certainly worthy of thoughtful consideration and reflection!

      Reply
    • Linda, and to your spirit that knows no name, I suppose I should reveal here that it is the greatest honor that a tribesman is here on my blog, serving as a reminder that an enslaved people were enslaved by another enslaved people with merely better technology and while pretending to be free. May your wrongs be righted and may you re-inherit the Earth. -Clint-

      Reply
    • MikeV

       /  January 9, 2015

      “Original sin” which they have a solution for after they get you to believe their concept of it, “Freedom” which they have a solution for after they do the same. Religion is the initial control, then economy through trade and money, then government and progressing forms of it, until you are a total slave believing your free by paying your debts for foregiveness OR begging to be free because the payments are not enough to buy your forgiveness any longer. Either way freedom has a monetary value, and your personal responsibility is your only true freedom but also means willing to die instead of having it taken away because being a slave is never an option if your truly free.
      Any so called government benefit is a step away from freedom and step towards slavery, something I recently contemplated is they declare jurisdiction though they never actually define the benefits your obligated for. I say this because I’m currently challenging “jury duty” and sent a letter requestion proof of my obligation, I flat out refused to sign their form and potentially purger myself or be charged with any fines ($250) so I rejected the offer asking for proof, its a threat of punishment or sign their jury contract.
      LOL also just search “police no duty to protect” so even police protection IS NOT a benefit. Seriously if you buy Insurance it is clearly defined but where are the defined benefits of this “freedom” we must all be debt slaves to for our whole lives?

      Clint have you seen Blacks commentary on “monks” and “civil death” ?

      Reply
      • Always good to hear from those challenging and walking the walk. I do not have a Black’s Commentary on monks and civil death, but it sounds like just what I’m looking for!!! Where can I get it?

        -Clint-

        Reply
        • MikeV

           /  January 10, 2015

          I’m now returning anything sent to me “ALL CAPS” as mistaken identity which I started with the official Jury Summons they just sent me, initially they answered my letter and it was not all caps but 2 months later sent the summons in all caps, so I have proof they actually recognize theres a difference and just cause to return the mistaken identity.

          Clint no joke I stumbled on this about a day after I heard you mention the “monk”,
          I’m pretty much one now myself and will help set up the monistary when ready LOL.
          http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1993/1993-007-brain-damage.pdf

          Check out Kurt Kallenbach latest audio on “Birth Certificate Character”, you thought you knew….
          https://app.box.com/s/8kuqigb9d4cii4pfa8c4

          Reply
  2. Watchman G !

     /  January 8, 2015

    Selah:-) Psalms 119

    How blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of Yahweh. How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, who seek Him with all their heart…

    From Clint:

    Sorry, but in consideration of the 172 lines of this particular Psalm, which is copied here word for word with no other comment, and without therefore censoring anything, please see this link to read what the commenter copied so as to save space – https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm+119&version=KJV

    – Clint-

    Reply
  3. MikeV

     /  January 9, 2015

    I thought this was initially for the recent Paris attack AKA “Paris 9/11” but that can be seamlessly added as a part 2. Ya the whole movie BS was just a stunt IMO, it can be compared to the “great dictator” from like 1939 which made Hitler look like a total spoof, most likely to marginalize what was happening and possible encourage Americans to fight this clown???Who realy payed attention at the time to the speech at the end after watching a comedy flic. There is more truth hidden in fiction then the actual reality they attempt to pass as truth aka “news”. But they only do this crap to gain something like “increased internet security” LOL first thing popped into my head was anybody with a proxy server link in NKorea can do something over the net from there.
    I just read in a book “SONY” isn’t even Japanese it is initials for “Standard Oil New York” which is Rockefeller, so there is global political agenda tattooed all over this.
    Standard oil created the conflict during WW2 with Japan , after the war took over with global bank capitalism and now owns Japan through debt. So N.korea is being utilized for whatever plan they are promoting in the near future, internet attack on speech + terrorist attack on speech all in couple weeks + the recent hype on N.Korea over past year.
    Remember big wars are alway on multiple fronts we cant just have 1 enemy, they develope multiple assets at the same time so nobody can fit the peices together and see the real agenda in clear focus.
    Man but the Paris attack, I mistakenly turned on CNN thinking my man Anthony Bourdain was on only to be assaulted by hard BS propaganda it seemed like actor after actor after actor “FREEDOM!…LIBERTY!…9/11!” just beating me in the head over and over, and all for the freedom of speech of political cartoonists, because terrorists have no other pressing issues then addressing their feelings getting hurt by cartoon characters???
    SO whats actually cooking here seems toooo much of a coincidence this coming on the heals of the movie release BS? So greater protections now for speech and “freedoms”, a UN global agenda on terrorists attacking more freedoms??? equating to more “equal rights” to the consenting citizen-slaves. The total irony here is I just opened the newspaper to get a quick glimps of the days BS, multiple pictures of the “terrorists” and police battling them LOL!!! and you couldn’t tell the difference all dressed in black with black ski masks on assault rifles and the blaring question was… who the hell are the terrorists here??? I mean so blaitent as if admitting there is no difference we are one in the same, “clean hands doctrine” in full effect.
    Terror is a business model and every business must stay profitable, only more Terror can justify increases spending securing more profits.
    LOL on another side note yet showing how political mechanics work, they just approved like 200 million in NY after all the Police shooting stuff with money going towards re-training cops, piggy backing on the agenda is over 25 million for greenhouse gas improvements to buildings, so the underlying agenda uses every means possible to get acceptance (only 1 voted against), in a few years nobody remembers the cop shootings but the money spend on greenhouse gas BS will have precedence though it was never the original issue at hand, now we need more $$$ and it grows like a virus hiding behind real issues as the carrier.

    Reply
  4. WITH

     /  January 14, 2015

    Hello,

    Say, I am wondering if you are willing to post commentary about the control the so-called “Jews” have over America and the countries of the world, and how they gained the control through their fraudulent banking practices. I have a lot to say but it is difficult to find sites that will post anything about the only people on this planet that one cannot investigate and write/speak about openly.

    Thank you,

    ed lewis

    “If the citizens neglect their Duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the Laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizen will be violated or disregarded.”: Noah Webster – (1758-1843) American patriot and scholar, author of the 1806 edition of the dictionary that bears his name, the first dictionary of American English usage.

    Reply
  5. “what gold is to money, the law of God is to liberty.” definitely not.
    I disagree with this philosophy completely and refuse the idea of governing speech.

    it’s very important that pious minds actually get what they deserve.
    like McKenna said:

    “there is no freedom without cognitive liberty.” Richard Grove
    “religion is the initial control…”
    piety or “the heart” has never been the object of public discourse or scientific examination.

    so we don’t have the slightest idea of the social consequences of impious thinking and corresponding.

    “I suppose I should reveal here that it is the greatest honor that a tribesman is here on my blog, serving as a reminder that an enslaved people were enslaved by another enslaved people with merely better technology and while pretending to be free.” WOW, just great!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: