More on Muslims, Mexicans and freedom of speech

Nobody has taken me to task for the apparent contradiction between my libertarianism on one hand (which presumably supports freedom of speech) and my condemnation of Islam as a menace to our society on the other.  I’m a bit disappointed because I enjoy being challenged and don’t mind being proven wrong.  As it stands, I believe I am right and I shall presently explain.

A person can believe anything he wants and his belief is meaningless to the outside world until he either speaks it or acts upon it.  Therefore, as far as we’re concerned, freedom of religion is the same as freedom of speech.  The writers of the U.S. Constitution clearly saw it this way, as they included both freedom of religion and freedom of speech in one amendment: the first.

Anybody who professes Islam is both exercising his freedom of religion and his freedom of speech.  So, by suggesting that Europe rid itself of its Muslims, am I not suggesting that they curtail freedom of speech?  Yes, I am and, as Curt Doolittle already wrote, “This isn’t a moral question. It’s a practical one.”  But I wanted to expound upon this.  A person could stand on a corner all day long and say “there is no god except Allah and Muhammad is His prophet.”  He might be singing it as a song to entertain or perhaps it is part of a college project (you never know these days), or he might be doing it on a dare.  Or he might be a Muslim.  In the former cases, it is freedom of speech.  In the latter case, it is also freedom of association.

Perhaps here I part ways with the authors of the Constitution but, while a nation should allow an individual to say what he will, at the same time, it must pay close attention to what he is.  It is not what people say that defines a nation; it is what they are.

I can think of two groups of people that it is dangerous to anger and doing so is likely to cost one’s life: Muslims and drug cartels.  If individuals, living in the U.S., profess their membership in a drug cartel, we would do well to remove them from our land.  The government is expected to do so even if the individuals in question have done nothing specifically illegal other than membership in such a group.  Both Muslims and drug cartels threaten freedom of speech in areas that they dominate.  It is likely that the cartels were inspired by Muslims in their use of violence and mutilation to stifle dissent.

Am I being unfair to compare Muslims to drug cartels?  Perhaps.  I have already pointed out that there are good people who call themselves “Muslim” and it is obvious that one cannot lump all Muslims together.  And yet any land that becomes home to large numbers of Muslims is transformed in ways most of us find disagreeable.  Any nation, that allows itself to be inhabited by more than a few Muslims, will find its indigenous population strangers in its own land.

The authors of the Constitution listed freedom of religion and freedom of speech as the “First Amendment” because, without it, all other rights are sure to be lost.  But there is another “First Amendment” that is so primary and so basic that the founding fathers felt no need to even list it: the right to have a nation.  Without a nation, there can be no Constitution and our rights have no home.  They wither away.

The nations of Europe cannot retain their various identities if they are dominated by Muslims.  The U.S. cannot retain its identity if it is dominated by Mexicans.  Europeans and Americans have the right to keep their nations.  Not just a right, but a duty; they owe it to their children.

Things are not so rosy these days in America but, in terms of freedom of speech, we have never had it so good as the last couple of generations.  It was not that long ago that Americans were being arrested for sedition and that antiwar  protesters were routinely thrown in jail.  It is ironic that the same open-mindedness that has given us such liberty has also grown malignant in the minds of fools and convinced them that all people are the same as us.  Thus, in their folly, they have invited the Mexican hordes and, under their wings like so many bedbugs, the cartels find their way here.  I fear that this era of freedom is near its end.  Once the enemy is among us, attending our schools, living in our neighborhoods, attending our churches and caring for our sick and elderly, then more distinctions must be made as far as what can be said and what cannot.  We wouldn’t want to offend them, now would we?  We wouldn’t want to anger them; it could be dangerous you know.  Somebody might get hurt.

About jewamongyou

I am a paleolibertarian Jew who is also a race-realist. My opinions are often out of the mainstream and often considered "odd" but are they incorrect? Feel free to set me right if you believe so!
This entry was posted in freedom of speech issues, immigration/ Hispanics, libertarian thought. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to More on Muslims, Mexicans and freedom of speech

  1. AJ says:

    since everyone indigenous should have their own land why dont you give it back to the Palestinians?

    • jewamongyou says:

      And where would you have the Jews live? Partition might not be a bad idea – and it’s already been done. Now it’s your turn to answer. Do whites not deserve a nation of their own?

  2. AJ says:

    there already are several. Argentina, Uruguay, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Estonia, Switzerland, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, and pretty much most of Europe. America has always been multiracial. ever hear about the Indians, or black slaves? oh but if you mean a country for ALL white people mixed together, and excluding nnwhites, well, theres no such nation for Orientals, or blacks, or Indians. All nations are by ethnicity and culture, not race. give me one exclusively black or asian racial state?o

  3. jewamongyou says:

    Citizens of any European country would be shocked to learn that their’s is a “white country”. In fact, in most of Europe, it is illegal to even suggest it. All majority white nations on Earth are destined to become majority non-white sooner or later with current trends.

    American was always multi-racial – but the United States was founded exclusively by whites and for whites.

  4. AJ says:

    BS. show me the law that says its illegal to say that. Nazism is illegal in Germany. oh, and btw Germany, yes uber-PC Germany recently declared that multiculturalism is dead and that “dominant German culture” should reign supreme. im sure you should be happy to hear this, no? oh and trust me, Russians arent going extinct anytime soon LOL. every year the birth rate goes up in Russia. in a few years itll be above replacement level again.

    • jewamongyou says:

      AJ, it is unclear if you are trying to deceive just other people or also yourself. Surely you are aware that “whites” refers to race, not culture. Even if Merkel was sincere (which I seriously doubt), her comment had nothing to do with race.

      As for it being illegal to state that a European state is specifically for whites, have you not heard of “hate-speech” laws? They apply to everybody,not just Nazis.

      As for Russians, do you honestly not see see the distinction between birthrates going up “in Russia” and “among Russians”? Many non-whites live in Russia and yes, their birthrates are going up. There has been much discussion of this distinction.

      Merkel’s comment, insincere as it probably was, is still a good sign. Russia’s birthrate, deceptive as it may be, might still be a good sign. People skirting hate-speech laws in Europe is a good sign. I do not claim that all news is bad – but we must not become complacent. Whites still do face a demographic holocaust.

  5. fred says:

    JAY-

    You, sir, have the patience of Job.

    • jewamongyou says:

      Thanks! It helps to remember that leftists did not start out that way; they have been programmed and brainwashed and it takes time to cure them of this disease.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        I used to be infected with the disease of white self-loathing and racial leftist nonsense.

        But as everyone can now tell, I’ve been disabused of my racial foolishness.

  6. AJ says:

    also, it is literally impossible for white people to go extinct, given the current demographic trends. now, this may surprise you. Utah is THE fastest growing state. no, not because of mexican immigration, but because of white mormon birth rates. also, the amish have high birth rates.so that means once the childless whites die off, we are going to see a spike as the White birth rate is adjusted for the high ones of these 2 groups, which are very much above replacement level. also, you must admit multiculturalism is one step to multi-racialism. so by rejecting multiculturalsim, Germany is taking a step in the right direction. its all in baby steps, remember. Several decades ago David Duke was seen as a nut for saying white people would become a minority in America because of the new immigration law. people laughed at him, and were not ready for that. now, years later it is a given that we become a minority. its racist to oppose. see the baby steps to the anti-white position here? so your job, Amren’s job, and other white advocates is to simply sway public opinion your way, little by little, like Geert Wilders and Germany is doing. its not everything, but its a step in the right direction.

  7. Californian says:

    It’s interesting that the left sees nothing wrong in censoring people via speech codes, “hate” crime laws, and so forth.

    The problem is not so much Islam but the reigning multicultist ideologies. These make it impossible to assimilate immigrants. Of course, it might be argued that Islam will not be assimilated, no matter what the host country does.

    We might also note that Muslims have no hesitation in attacking freedom of speech of people they do not like in the West, such as cartoonists who portray Mohamed. It’s one thing for them to censor such in their own countries, another for them to extend their rule to Europe and North America. If the threat of Islamic violence can prevent a clergyman in America from burning the Koran, then the USA has given up a bit of its own sovereignty.

    Which gets back to the real point here: how does a country deal with people who do not live up to their end of the social contract?

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