Sunday, 29 July 2018

The Neoliberal State Defended By, Of All People, The Left.

Unusual Packaging: The most piquant irony of the ongoing free speech controversy is the role being played by the extremities of the New Zealand Left. In their determination to fight “fascism” they have allowed themselves to fall into the precise role of Mussolini’s fascisti and Hitler’s sturmabteilung: front-line defenders of ruling-class interests.

FASCISM IS CAPITALISM’S response to significant demonstrations of disruptive political strength – especially those challenging prevailing social hierarchies and property relations. The historical record could hardly be clearer in this regard. Mussolini’s fascisti gained significant ruling-class backing following the post-World War One factory and land occupations organised by Italy’s radicalised workers and peasants. Hitler’s Munich-based Nazi Party grew out of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic, itself a part of the broader German Revolution of 1918-19. General Francisco Franco’s military coup was launched in response to the Left’s electoral successes of 1936 and the related anarchist attacks on Spain’s reactionary aristocracy and church. Essentially, fascism is capitalism in full self-defence mode.

In relation to contemporary New Zealand, the question must surely be: “Is Kiwi Capitalism under serious threat of disruption?” Equally surely, the answer is: “Not really.” With a Finance Minister determined to keep both public debt and public spending at ridiculously low levels, the New Zealand business community must be finding it difficult to believe its luck. Their anguished bleating over largely cosmetic changes to the Employment Relations Act notwithstanding, employers face nothing even remotely resembling an angry and organised working-class. Such industrial action as there is remains well-corralled within the public sector – which makes it the State’s problem, not theirs.

If there is no credible threat to New Zealand capitalism’s property and profits, then what about its social hierarchy? After all, it was the election of a Black President which set in motion the white racist backlash that carried Donald Trump into the White House?

Nothing so viscerally disconcerting has yet happened here. Jacinda Ardern’s friendly feminism threatens no one and Labour’s uniquely large Maori caucus has yet to say “Boo!” to a single Pakeha goose. Trans-gender issues may figure prominently on the left-wing blogs and Twitter, but such a tiny minority is unlikely to cause the ruling-class too many sleepless nights.

Only one issue has the potential to fundamentally disrupt the existing regime: immigration. For those New Zealanders who believe themselves to be living in a fundamentally “white” society, the recent influx of immigrants from East and South Asia has been deeply disconcerting. The New Zealand capitalist “establishment” cannot, however, allow this sort of low-level xenophobic grousing to gain significant political traction. Asia’s contribution to New Zealand’s capitalism’s well-being is simply too substantial.

Far from aggravating the dominant Kiwi culture’s relationships with New Zealand’s diverse immigrant communities, it is in the interests of the established order to keep these as harmonious as possible. Like Singapore’s authoritarian capitalist regime, New Zealand’s neoliberal establishment has nothing to gain by either encouraging or tolerating communal strife. Champions of neoliberalism and globalisation must also be champions of multiculturalism.

For the foreseeable future, therefore, it is in the interests of the ruling-class to keep the majority culture as quiescent as possible. In the New Zealand context, Pakeha nationalism is the enemy of the state – not its ally. Even Maori nationalism poses potential risks. The prospect of seeing their Treaty Partner status overtaken (at least numerically) by Asian New Zealanders is unlikely to fill the tangata whenua with joy!

Herein lies the irony of the ongoing “free speech” controversy. As vociferous opponents of what they characterise as existential threats to traditional Anglo-Saxon culture, Lauren Southern’s and Stefan Molyneux’s looming visit to New Zealand is intended to persuade ordinary Kiwis to look to their own defence against the twin scourges of multiculturalism and identity politics.

In the United States, such a mission would immediately identify them as allies of the Trump Administration: divide-and-conquer veterans of the United States’ seemingly endless culture wars. In New Zealand, however, their hyper-nationalistic, racially-charged ideas are subject to official condemnation as potentially subversive of New Zealand’s multicultural status-quo. A solid wall of opposition has been raised against their visit by such champions of diversity as the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University and the Mayor of Auckland.

The most piquant irony of them all, however, is the role being played by the extremities of the New Zealand Left. In their determination to fight “fascism” they have allowed themselves to fall into the precise role of Mussolini’s fascisti and Hitler’s sturmabteilung: front-line defenders of ruling-class interests and mortal opponents of those social forces (predominantly conservative in this instance) whose successful political mobilisation might threaten their future prospects among the ruling social, economic and cultural elites – to whose defence they have sprung so aggressively.

This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Sunday, 29 July 2018.

35 comments:

Daniel Copeland said...

Hi, Chris. I have a response to the free speech question, a bit long for me to go through in a comment, but I discuss some of the points you've made; it's here.

Kat said...

Since the alt right provocateurs are coming to NZ anyway and speaking at a private venue it just shows to go the "free speech" moniker was just a diversion. Best example of a storm in a teacup we have seen for ages.

And as far as "hate speech" goes check out some of the choice rhetoric at the National party conference this weekend.

Jens Meder said...

Congratulations, Chris, for if I understand your last 2 blogs correctly, you have at last revealed clearly, that the altruistic social democratic Left accepts, and believes in co-operation with private capitalism (e.g.Sweden) in a more humane way and achieving better results than the extreme govt. monopoly capitalist "dictatorship of the proletariat" variety of the extreme Left - which is clearly just as fascist, as Mussonlini's.

The latter is not just an opinion, but can be witnessed by those having experienced it.

And in a free society it would make sense for the extreme fascist Left to oppose speech censorship so as to safeguard its rights and opportunities to spread its own dubious or even radically revolutionary messages.

David Stone said...

@ Daniel Copeland
My objection to control of speech , the alternative to free speech is simpler.
If there is to be restriction of speech , then there must be some authority that has the power to decide and act on their decision to prevent someone from speaking, or control what they can say. If you assert that some incumbent individual has the relevant qualifications, i.e.. infinite wisdom and total benevolence to justify them holding such a position (i.e. God) , then that quality can only be expected to persist as long as that individual remains in place. The position they occupy will pass to another and sooner or later it will be abused. And of corse it will be sooner not later.
There is hardly anything bad that can be said about someone that might not be true and relevant for people to know. And if there is no justification for statements they won't get much traction unless they have the backing of Main stream media. Much of the information , or misinformation , that invites people to murder each other as in Libya or Syria at the moment is run in the MSM on behalf of the American deep state , and that isn't going to be silenced any time soon.
Free speech is or has been most vigorously curtailed in despotic autocracies . It is the only way to keep democracy and a degree of freedom alive.
D J S
D J S

Nick J said...

Jans, well spotted, the "extreme fascist Left" you mention...can't deny that Mussolini and Hitler were influenced by socialist ideas. Where they took it was to a corporatism, interest groups set off against one another.

The modern Left that you have experienced are more the inheritors of the failed Soviet. Because the blood and death that followed "true socialism" could not be denied the chameleons changed colour. They dressed it up as post Modernism, identity politics with a whole new array of victims and enemies. At heart it is as authoritarian if not yet, reply not yet, as lethal.

Polly. said...

In a democracy there has always been free speech.
In a democracy there will always be free speech.
Democracy is the answer, free speech is a symptom.

John Hurley said...

Rationality Rules reviews the Salon debate: "Is the Left Eating Itself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r3H9--2nS0

greywarbler said...

Can there be an assessment of the object of the free speech. Is it rabble rousing, maintaining an aroused current in the citizens which involves
sowing seeds of blame against some entity, to the point where it is denigration because of wilful disliking. And this would be a determination to never accept someone or thing because they had different ways or looks.
These are regarded as so unpleasant or dangerous that they are to be rejected, or held in contempt and be regarded as outsiders to be attacked at will whenever there is fault found in the society.

This seems to be how things work with racism etc.

Personally I cannot put up with full face covering of ordinary women. I would accept it if they had had leprosy and wanted to protect themselves from the public curious gaze. But I think that a hiding away of face
is a backward step for women and should not get embedded in western society no matter what argument different cultures make.

Having a go at aborigines by this precious pair for the entertainment of
bored citizens or curious observers is an unpleasant right to carry on a
meme that does much harm to the subjects. It is the same when applied to welfare beneficiaries, unmarried mothers, etc. Anyone who is not at the same level of white middle class acceptance is grist to the mill.

There is a freedom that is OTT. And that is when it is someone insisting on their personal rights to an excess which requires someone else to yield their right to respect as a person. We know a lot about human thinking and memory and brain development, and these people are enabled as demagogues who help to carry on this virus of warped minds through generations.

Freedom of speech is like anything - there is a limit beyond which its positive effect ceases and it becomes counter-productive and onwards it becomes toxic.

John Hurley said...

If there is no credible threat to New Zealand capitalism’s property and profits, then what about its social hierarchy? After all, it was the election of a Black President which set in motion the white racist backlash that carried Donald Trump into the White House?
.........
I don't believe that about the black president. He was also an advocate of the borderless[ish] world. He did say he loved Europe but didn't feel at home (something a European feels in Asia). Also if he didn't return Churchill's bust he didn't manage the PR well. So he was a globalist. People instantly judge race, age and sex. Race represents coalition affiliation but this can be overcome. The actor can be seen apart from his clothing.
===================
Nothing so viscerally disconcerting has yet happened here. Jacinda Ardern’s friendly feminism threatens no one and Labour’s uniquely large Maori caucus has yet to say “Boo!” to a single Pakeha goose.
...........
Everyday we are confronted by Maoridom. Yesterday it was Insight: Should Te Reo be compulsory?. We learned that "every single Maori negative statistic can be traced to colonisation" and "our wars". This is a sick toxic metanarrative. The Pakeha whose family had nothing to do with anything is blamed by the Maori (who by inheritance is Maori) for [you name it]. There is no more than an element of truth to it all in so far as history might have taken a different course. But this is not something the politicians have no part of. It is part of Labour Party ideology [ref Steve Maharey on Pundit - Don Brash guyon Espiner]

We need to take a hard look at what has been taught in the humanities departments (examine their expertise).

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Free speech is in fact curtailed everywhere. Because it often contradicts or conflicts with other freedoms. And with the public good. Tobacco advertising for instance. Or in Germany, the exhibiting of Nazi symbols. And I don't regard countries that ban tobacco advertising or Nazi symbols as being necessarily less democratic than those who don't. Free speech is also curtailed in many countries by regulation. You can't set up a loudspeaker outside my house and broadcast your bullshit in the middle of the night. Your freedom to speak doesn't trump my freedom to sleep. And there is a huge list of things you are not allowed to say and places you are not allowed to say it – in just about every country in the world. We control speech all the time, it's just that we draw the line in different places.
I wonder how those advocates of being able to say anything would respond to rape threats on the Internet for instance. Even though we all know it's not going to happen..... probably. Just young men being stupid, but even so...... and certain types of porn – all free speech right? So we ban targeted harassment and threats. And somebody has to decide what is targeted harassment and what is simply offensive – some authority.
And speech often has consequences. Up to and including killing people. Dylan Roof killed 9 people because of inflammatory statements on neo-Nazi websites. But of course those who make inflammatory remarks slide out from that because they are not held responsible. But often, they are quite happy with the results of their dog whistles. Incitement to violence can be done in any number of ways, not all of which expose the person inciting to consequences.
And as I said before, no one owes you a platform. You are perfectly free to set up a YouTube account, or hire a private hall or whatever the hell, but no one is obliged to hire you anything. And as far as I'm concerned, if you are going to engage in provocative speech, you better be ready to pay for the security.

Kat said...

"if you are going to engage in provocative speech, you better be ready to pay for the security".......very true GS and that is most likely the reason the National party has had to have beefed up security at its conferences over the years.

greywarbler said...

'We' need tp examine your expertise i think John Hurley. You sound like one of the old white men who got up and spoke and hogged the floor at the Constitutional Conversation I went to. It seems that the desire of old of barbarians to ride or sail in and rob or wipe out a culture and its treasures is still alive. The methods are different but the restless desire to change and destroy persists.

John Hurley said...

GS
Dylan Roof killed 9 people because of inflammatory statements on neo-Nazi websites.
..........
And because he's a working class white who strays into the territories of working class blacks and it isn't events that affect us [or words] it is how we chose to react to them.

Can you quote what the neo-Nazi website said? What matters is the Hitler's case against the Jews is deconstructed just as the Maori case against Pakeha ought to be deconstructed by the bozos at RNZ.

Tom Hunter said...

Free speech is in fact curtailed everywhere. Because it often contradicts or conflicts with other freedoms.
Like my freedom to watch a play in peace without worrying about being crushed in a human stampede because some nut thinks it would be fun to scream “fire” during the performance when there is no fire. But that’s a very high bar for banning and deals with speech deliberately designed to result in death and destruction. More on that in a bit.

And with the public good.
Ah yes. And hasn’t that been bent and twisted by the folks in charge over the years around the world? Funnily enough the famous theatre-fire comparison came from the mouth of a US Supreme Court Judge - even as he sent people to jail for protesting against US involvement in WW1! Apparently the consequences of their free speech - that the US might withdraw from the war - were on a par with the horrible scenario of the crowded theatre. Such speech was just as “false or untrue” - which of course is exactly what you’re claiming here.

That standard was rejected by later SCOTUS justices, just in time for the Late 60’s Far Left protesting against the Vietnam War, which I’m sure you approve of. Given that the WWI injustices occurred under the leadership of Progressive Democrat President, Woodrow Wilson, perhaps it’s simply a case of Rules For Thee, But Not For Me. Certainly recent arguments put forward by Left-Wing professors about the excessive freedoms of the US 1st amendment being “taken advantage of” by the Right, suggest the dull brute form of the latter.

Tobacco advertising for instance. Or in Germany, the exhibiting of Nazi symbols.
Well of course if you’re going to cite such infringements as justification then the sky’s the limit under the broad umbrella of the public good”. Next up I’m sure will be similar demands around sugar - or perhaps petrol once AGW really gets going.

For my part I think both of these examples are precisely an example of how bad this shit can get. One could argue against advertising pornography on TV between 3 and 6pm by making substantive claims that it’s not a good idea to aim such at small children. But the implications around restricting advertising for tobacco in general, or exhibiting Nazi symbols to a German populace three generations removed from WW2, is to reduce the audience to the same level of little children; unknowing, ignorant, unable to think critically.

But given your frequent cries about the dreadful consequences arising from the speech of Southern and company, you no doubt have that low opinion of your fellow citizens. I think “consumers” of tobacco advertising and Germans in the 21st century can hear the respective messages without mindlessly running to the nearest tobacconist or National Socialist flag factory.
....

Tom Hunter said...

...
I wonder how those advocates of being able to say anything would respond to rape threats on the Internet for instance.
I’m not aware that even free-speech advocates are arguing that anything can be said (see above). But even if there were that would not include deliberate calls for violence such as rape, murder or robbery. Even before modern discussions of free speech, it was well understood that calling for or threatening violence was in a different category altogether.

Dylan Roof killed 9 people because of inflammatory statements on neo-Nazi websites.
And Bernie Bro, James T Hodgkinson, used a rifle to shoot at GOP House members practicing for a baseball game, wounding a couple (one so severely he required months of hospitalization), before being killed by the cops. But of course that had nothing to do with the unending vitriol about Republicans being scumbags (select any other abusive term you wish, they’re all used) for months on the websites, Facebook, Twitter and blog sites he followed. And then there’s the thug who tried to shoot up an anti-abortion group precisely because (as he told the cops) the SPLC had designated them as a “hate group”.

But of course those who make inflammatory remarks slide out from that because they are not held responsible.
As evidenced by EVERY Bernie supporter in the USA, who deny, deny, deny to this day that their bile and vitriol towards Republicans had anything to do with Mr. Hodgkinson’s actions - a complete contrast to the screams about the role of Sarah Palin’s “target” symbols in the 2011 Gifford’s shooting.

Go on GS, repeat that here: tell us that Hodgkinson’s violent actions had nothing to do with the speech aimed at RWNJ’s by your US counterparts.

And as far as I'm concerned, if you are going to engage in provocative speech, you better be ready to pay for the security.
Well in that case, perhaps my previous question is moot. You fully approve of such actions, as long as it’s not aimed at you, but you’re aiming it at your opponents.

Instead of calling this the “hecklers veto” it should be the thugs veto. I presume you don’t act like this at parties: “You provoked me, time for me to deliver a knuckle sandwich”,. This may come as a surprise to you (I imagine many things do), but that justification will still result in a conviction for assault. Such a threat also sets an impossible standard for establishing a physical platform. No matter the speech, you are held to be in control of your decisions as to whether to commit or threaten violence. Claiming that people should be silenced because you can’t control your worst instincts is not a sufficient reason, although I see more Lefties than ever arguing that it is, not to mention crying that others “may” be hurt.

Disgusting. Thuggish. Cretinous. Not the mark of a civilized man.

Since arguing the morality and ethics of free speech with such as you seems to be pointless perhaps I can use a utilitarian argument: since you’re always banging on about the tremendous power held by RWNJ’s due to our wealth, isn’t a bit stupid to put yourself in a position where we can outbid you on providing security for “our” speakers? :)

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"I’m not aware that even free-speech advocates are arguing that anything can be said".

Just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Actually, many of them say that we should only punish people for their actions, not their words. But I have talked to a number of women who have received threats of rate or death on the Internet, and this speech definitely does have consequences for them, both physical and mental.

"James T Hodgkinson, used a rifle to shoot at GOP House members practicing for a baseball game, wounding a couple (one so severely he required months of hospitalization), before being killed by the cops. But of course that had nothing to do with the unending vitriol about Republicans being scumbags (select any other abusive term you wish, they’re all used) for months on the websites, Facebook, Twitter and blog sites he followed."

Irrelevant. It quite possibly did have something to do with left-wing vitriol, and I would never deny that it could have. This is not a political thing. I can't see how you could conclude that a free-speech issue can be a matter of left versus right.

"Instead of calling this the “hecklers veto” it should be the thugs veto."

People have the right to demonstrate to the limits of the law. If they pass those limits they should be punished. And maybe made to contribute some money towards the security required to eject or arrest them. But these two are speaking privately at a private venue, so they can let in or keep out whoever they like. And again, provocative speech can come from anywhere, not just the right. I hear you people moaning all the time about provocative Islamist speech along the lines of "Why the fuck are they even allowed into the country?" So sauce for the goose.

"Disgusting. Thuggish. Cretinous. Not the mark of a civilized man."

As opposed to a litany of strawmen?



Tom Hunter said...

Just because you're not aware of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I would have thought it obvious that I was leaving the door open for you to demonstrate your claim with links to such calls. Instead you shifted the goalposts to many of them say that we should only punish people for their actions, not their words, and then followed that with the comments about the practical consequences of threats of rape - as if I had not written the following
But even if there were that would not include deliberate calls for violence such as rape, murder or robbery., which covers your scenario and is a clear acknowledgement that such threats are not the same as free speech.

Irrelevant. It quite possibly did have something to do with left-wing vitriol..
Not possibly. Absolutely, as the cops found when they looked at his social media accounts. And far from being irrelevant the counter-example of James T Hodgkinson went directly to your example of Dylan Root - unless you want to now dismiss your example as also "irrelevant".

I can't see how you could conclude that a free-speech issue can be a matter of left versus right.
I conclude that because you thought that the neo-Nazi Dylan Root example was "relevant" to your argument about restrictiing speech - whereas you dismissed the counter-example of Bernie Bro Hodgkinson as "irrelevant". Clearly you think it's a left-right issue - as long as you have examples of the "right" being the baddies. And so of course for you, the former case had a clear link - "because of inflammatory statements on neo-Nazi websites." - whereas the latter link is only "possible".

People have the right to demonstrate to the limits of the law.
Well if your lot are going to be so law-abiding then they'll be no need for security around the speakers, yes? Of course the implication of your demand that if people are going to be "provocative" in their speech then the better pay for security, clearly implies that you'll be more than happy to breach the limits of the law.

I have to admit that I expect nothing less from the Far Left.

I hear you people moaning all the time about provocative Islamist speech along the lines of "Why the fuck are they even allowed into the country?" So sauce for the goose.
Oh are those the new rules now, along with paying for security? Well in that case you'll have no objection when a future right-wing Auckland mayor bans such Imams from speaking in forums owned by the Council - or when they're unable to speak because they can't pay for security.

Sauce being for the goose and all. :)

greywarbler said...

Tom Hunter
If someone calls a Republican a scumbag people are free to agree or not, but it can't be used as an excuse or reason for someone shooting said Republican. That isns't inflammatory it's an outspoken opinion. In a reasoning society. Online there is some violent calling out of some people and designated treatment that should be meted out to them. Those who are easily led into hostility can be inflamed to take action when encouragement and even praise of forceful action is expressed.


Tom Hunter said...

If someone calls a Republican a scumbag people are free to agree or not,
For my part I'm more than happy for this to happen - partly because it's a good counterpoint to all the garbage I've heard for years about a need for civility and the terrible divisiveness of the GOP and blah, blah, blah - and partly because I'm happy to see the Left expose itself, damaging that ever-present halo.

But what's been happening in the last three years has been much worse than the usual sturm and drang of political and ideological opponents hurling abuse at eachother. The GOP are now regularly (and gleefully) being called evil, and (of course) Nazis. And of course they are, aren't they?

Well in that case what's to be done? You've just declared that the other side are evil, Nazi scum - and all you going to do is conduct a peaceful protest? Vote?

Come on. Either the screams are just the usual virtue signalling garbage and designed to get the Left voters riled up and into the voting booth (which is what I think), OR .... you take serious action, as Antifa have clearly said ("Punch a Nazi") and as Hodgkinson clearly decided.

However, I'm still quite happy to not restrict the speech of Antifa and company, even knowing the physical violence that naturally attaches. Unfortunately for the Left - as Chris is pointing out in this article - the result is exactly what real Nazis want. Not to mention White Supremacists. In both cases their work is being done for them; no need to go recruiting when people are being driven towards you by a rage-filled, Identity Politics Left that has decided that there is only one "priviliged" group that can be demonised, which is Europeans and their culture.

Here's a classic example from just the other day, where the Dean of the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Georgia, wrote a Tweet congratulating a GOPer for winning the GOP primary to run for the Georgia Governorship:
“I went to high school with GOP guv candidate @BrianKempGA. We played YMCA ball from childhood. Politics be damned. He is a nice guy, always was. Kind to a fault,” Davis tweeted. “He’s a friend, always has been, and will be when we’re old(er) and grey(er). That’s how all this should work, people.”
Hahahahahahahahaah. How did that work out for the Dean? A couple of responses out of dozens:
“You’re a straight white man. Of course he was nice and kind to you. Racists are generally nice to their own kind,” one user replied. “Why don’t you say what you really mean. Politics be damned. You’d never vote for a black woman and would much rather vote for the white racist.”

“It’s the definition of privilege,” another user remarked caustically. “~the dean~ has the luxury of damning politics because no politician is threatening his rights, safety, or survival; he is willing to empower those who would threaten the same of others on account of the candidate being ‘nice’ to him personally.”


For all I know either of those could have been written by GS. It's right in his wheelhouse. :)

So it goes. And then the Left is surprised that people who once voted for Obama, vote for Trump, or that they'll attend events like those of Southern and Molyneaux.

Nick J said...

Grey, that's why I keep calling for a new narrative, ongoing dialogue and a joint understanding of principles that both sides can agree upon. The upshot is that I get pretty harmonised on the extreme elements of the Left, my own side.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

" Well in that case you'll have no objection when a future right-wing Auckland mayor bans such Imams from speaking in forums owned by the Council - or when they're unable to speak because they can't pay for security."

Yes, quite happy with that.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/meet-new-face-ukip-free-12819236

"How can one be a "Free Speech Extremist"
You either support Free Speech or you do not.
If you ever say something like "I support free speech but not hate speech" or "I support free speech but..." then you are not a supporter of free speech."

Essentially I was talking about conversations I had had with libertarians on blog sites.

"But even if there were that would not include deliberate calls for violence such as rape, murder or robbery., which covers your scenario and is a clear acknowledgement that such threats are not the same as free speech."

There are ways of making threats that make them quite legal.
Jesus fuck why don't you just go in Google "gamergate" and have a look at some of the things that some of the women had to put up with that seem to be perfectly legal, but led to at least 1 of them changing her address because she was scared. I think you're just being deliberately obtuse.

"the majority view is that a defendant can be found guilty of communicating a threat, even if he did not intend that his words be taken in that manner, as long as a reasonable person would have understood his words as threatening. By contrast, the minority view requires not only that a speaker’s words be reasonably perceived as a threat, but also that the speaker intended that his words be seen or heard in precisely that way. The distinction is an important one because the majority rule could lead to the conviction of a defendant who intended to utter a joke, but whose words were perceived by others as a threat."

That's what "your lot" do they say something egregious and then claim it's a joke. Your mate Milo is an expert at this bullshit.

"Well if your lot are going to be so law-abiding then they'll be no need for security around the speakers, yes?"

There is always need for security. Because "my lot" aren't a monolithic bloc just like your lot. Mind you, there have been far more right wing killings/assassinations in the US then there have been by my lot. And I'm quite happy with people who break the law being punished and fuck me a little bit tired of the insinuation that I'm not.

"Absolutely, as the cops found when they looked at his social media accounts. The

Your counterexample is one, I can think of at least a dozen examples of right-wing murders in the US. In your whole statement makes no sense. I had already said it may well have been relevant. I didn't follow the case, and you're being pedantic. And if you're going to be that pedantic you should learn how to spell, particularly someone's name.

https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killings-in-2017/
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-supremacist-murders-2017-report_us_5a5f59b0e4b0ee2ff32c4bea
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-sees-300-violent-attacks-inspired-far-right-every-year

That's all "your lot" right?

"I can't see how you could conclude that a free-speech issue can be a matter of left versus right."

You don't seem to be able to grasp what I'm saying here so I'll repeat it more simply.
I don't care if someone is left-wing or right-wing as far as the free-speech issue goes. The politics of the person involved, is irrelevant. At least to me, it doesn't seem to be irrelevant to you. Get back to me if you still can't understand, and I'll try get my 4-year-old grandson to explain it to you.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Tom.
As if the right doesn't have virtue signalling of its own.
"Blah blah socialism blah blah socialism."
"Why did the unemployed sit around on their arses all the time why don't they go out and get jobs?" – It's just that easy.

“I will not allow our great country to be sold out by anti-Trump haters in the dying newspaper industry,” your man Trump.

"“These people shouting questions are the worst,” Trump has said, according to a current official. “Why do we have them in here?”"

Because they're the press – your man Trump again.

The Summit with Russia was a great success, except with the real enemy of the people, the Fake News Media*." Your man Trump again all for free speech.

*Or as normal people call them, the news media.

And of course, racism doesn't exist and no one is privileged.

"Milwaukee agreed Tuesday to pay $3.4 million to settle a lawsuit alleging its police department spent years targeting black and Latino residents without probable cause with its stop-and-frisk policy."

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Dammit, ran out of characters, but if we're talking about right wing "free speech".

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/kill-them-all-right-wing-extremists-violent-rhetoric-features-trump-endorsed-radio

Chris Trotter said...

Your increasing shrillness, Guerilla Surgeon, does you no favours.

Of course there is genuine hate speech - and there's nothing remotely mysterious or difficult about it. It is speech which, if heeded, would lead directly to real harm being inflicted on an/other human-being/s.

Incitement to race murder springs to mind. Or, baling-up a terrified black child and chanting "Nigger!" in her face.

This isn't rocket science, GS. Take a breath.

hilary531 said...

Do not most of us have a 'live & let live' approach to life, society, cultural concerns? "when in Rome do as the Romans do'..There's a good reason such analogies ring true for most. They're still a lens through which I view 'diversity' & multi-culturalism in NZ. Happy for others to come here..my forebears did after all...but I'm not that keen on others censoring my personal freedoms, already taken for granted here in this fair land.The free flow of ideas is very important to forming opinions about pretty much anything. By all means champion diversity here but don't use it as a battering ram or a veiled excuse to censor. Hackles may be raised & blowback might ensue.

thesorrowandthepity said...

Then officially challenge Lauren Southern & Stefan Molyneux to a public debate Chris.

In an open & free Western society should Salafist & Wahabi ideologies be accepted, & criticism of them be labelled 'facism'?
Should Westerners be tolerant towards those who preach hatred towards Jews, Homosexuals, & women; & should we accept acts of violence against those groups if the perpetrators were acting upon their religious beliefs?
Should segments of the population in a Multi Cultural society be allowed to create their own set of laws & rules if they don't like those of the society. And should that group be allowed to run & enforce its own legal system, based on their religious beliefs, even if that legal system were to be in violation of the laws of that country, such as female genital mutilation?

Tom Hunter said...

Yes, quite happy with that. [right-wing mayors banning speakers from public forums]
Well I’m not, because that path leads to totalitarian thuggery.

Jesus fuck why don't you just go in Google "gamergate"
Thanks to having a couple of teenage sons and their friends I was aware of “gamergate” long before it became a cause célèbre for the likes of you. Needless to say the woman involved had played nasty, attempting to intimidate the nerds with the usual guilting, shaming, doxxing etc beloved of SJW’s. Only trouble was that their targets were used to being treated like that by the cool kids at school and in this setting, knew how to strike back. I know some of it went over the top, but their targets weren’t nice people, and rapidly retreated to the predictable last stand of screaming about how they were the victims. Hypocrites, and brutes with it: the very definition of the modern SJW bully.

The youth know more about this than you do and to say the least, their interpretation of Gamergate is a lot different from that of middle aged or septuagenarian Lefties.

And I could show you hours of abusive shit dumped on to right wing places like FreedomWorks.com. Really vile shit from your side, but as in all these cases you probably never heard about it, and could not care less anyway.

Double standards - again.

That's what "your lot" do they say something egregious and then claim it's a joke.
Oh my god, the horror! You’ve just described the New Wave of edgy comedians that all the old Lefties of the 1960’s adored. What would Lenny Bruce or George Carlin do now? No wonder stand-up comedy is dying in the US.

I can think of at least a dozen examples of right-wing murders in the US.
You can? I’ll bet they’re all from that ADL report that you linked to. Or more precisely that you linked to via two other links with the Huffington Post and “QZ”, neither of which added anything so why did you bother rather than just going to the original? Let me guess - you never actually read it did you, just knee jerked to their secondary headlines.

As it happens I did read the original report and found to my amusement that in a desperate effort to bump up the stats, it included killings where one White Power type killed another in the group, killings within such families, killing people during a prison break, killing someone in prison, and a bunch of other stuff that had zero relationship whatsoever to the natural reading of ”White nationalist killings” that one got from the HuffPo and Qaurtz headlines. Hell, even the report acknowledged that Jeremy Christian, who espoused right-wing extremist views and also supported Bernie Sanders, was hard to classify.

Not the HuffPo or “Quartz” in their counting though - of course. A farcical conflation of definitions designed to produce artificial counts in an already tiny sample, that can then be waved around by Leftists screaming, I have the proof - with stats!

Pathetic.

Tom Hunter said...

Then there was your 2018 PBS link to the Counter-Terrorism Center at West Point and “300 events of Right Wing violence” per year. The report’s author was Arie Perliger, who directs the Center’s terrorism studies and teaches social sciences at West Point. I can only imagine what his classes are like as his report managed to lump together every known Left stereotype about the Right. Same garbage as the ADL, with vague definitions and categorisation around both the groups and the events, designed to produce a “count”, which actually differed little from a similar report from them several years ago, or from the Department of Homeland Security 2009 report that tried to trash the Tea Party groups as “potentially violent extremists” and was dropped after much public ridicule.

Pathetic - again.

All this lead to a comment from a former member of the US military now working on Capitol Hill:
“If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and others?”

As for the rest of your comments, I think Chris’s calling them “shrill” is less accurate than saying they’re an incoherent, jumbled mess: a written version of old man sputtering, so won’t bother with the rest of it in detail but will make three points.

First, it doesn’t get more privileged than living in the Leftist enclaves of the East and West Coasts of the US today - and attributing “privilege” to some stump-toothed Appalachian hillbilly who will likely never make it to Harvard, compared to say, Obama’s daughters (who certainly will), is not even a bad joke. Similarly with the racism of Harvard stiffing Asian students because they’re Asian in order to boost the percentage of Black and Hispanic students, precisely as they used to do to Jews to boost WASPs. Racism and privilege still exist all right - but they’re increasingly in the last places that Leftists are willing to look.

Second, Trump is the monster doppelgänger who deals this stuff out in precisely the way that stiffs like Bush, McCain and Romney would not, even as they got trashed as pieces of Right Wing excrement anyway. It’s a big part of why voters chose him this time.

Third, Alternet and RW calls for violence? HA! Just DuckDuckGo images for “Calls to Kill Trump”.

BTW - perhaps to reduce the sputtering you could just write everything down in longhand, giving you time to think, and then type it into the laptop. Since you’ve got that 4 year old with you he can help by supplying grandpa with the brightly coloured crayons and paper. :)

John Hurley said...

See what the bourgeois left has done to the working class of britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZZD89ucoI

Timefool said...

So the idea that neoliberalism has, in many respects, accommodated itself to multiculturalism, now requires anti-neoliberals to embrace white supremacism? It is difficult to see how what you write could be otherwise interpreted. What’s next––that you instruct feminists to rally to the patriarchy because, as Nancy Fraser has discussed, there are elements of feminism which have a similar compatibility with the ruling order?

It’s fairly well recognised that the prime movers in the FSC in NZ are all heavily invested in tribal politics here. Their fundamental inclination is to resist any assent to the advocacy of political adversaries. It’s strikingly hollow then to hear them––universally––claim a disavowal of the content of what Southern and Molyneaux espouse, but adherence to a higher principle, as if they were so many public-spirited everypersons without previous form in the realm of spin. That you have cleaved to this association will, inevitably, be subject to judgement of others’. I won’t say good luck with that, not because you wouldn’t want it (on principle––although this is presumably the case) but that on the basis of what you’ve written on this issue, I wouldn’t mean it.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Well I’m not, because that path leads to totalitarian thuggery. "
Pure assertion.

"Gamergate"
Funny, you assume I don't have teenagers. You're good at assumptions. Anyway my teenagers gave me a completely different story to yours obviously. Perhaps none of yours are female.

"They weren't nice people."
Even if this were true does that excuse death threats and rape threats? Boys will be boys – in your world anyway.

"As it happens I did read the original report and found to my amusement that in a desperate effort to bump up the stats, it included killings where one White Power type killed another in the group, killings within such families, killing people during a prison break, killing someone in prison, and a bunch of other stuff that had zero relationship whatsoever to the natural reading of ”White nationalist killings” "

No you didn't, you simply went to some RWNJ sites that try to debunk it. See – I can make assertions too. As if somehow some dead people don't count.

"Second, Trump is the monster doppelgänger who deals this stuff out in precisely the way that stiffs like Bush, McCain and Romney would not, even as they got trashed as pieces of Right Wing excrement anyway. It’s a big part of why voters chose him this time."

Trump – if he has anything at all aside from a corrupt selfish prick, is an authoritarian fascist who is categorising the mainstream press as enemies of the people. Which is hardly in line with your ideas of free speech, and may have influenced the shooting in Maryland.

"As for the rest of your comments, I think Chris’s calling them “shrill” is less accurate than saying they’re an incoherent,

Yes he did, and if you were actually paying attention you have noticed that he censored one of my comments, which I find slightly ironic. And I notice you didn't instantly jump to my defence as you did with the alt right neo-Nazis.
Easy enough to throw adjectives around. If I were going to throw them around I would assign you Chutzpah. It's quite a good one for you I'd stick with it if I were you, because actually hypocrisy first sprang to mind.

Tom Hunter said...

Me: "Well I’m not, because that path leads to totalitarian thuggery. “
You: Pure assertion
Me: Pure history of totalitarian regimes. They all start with stopping freedom of speech for the common good.

As if somehow some dead people don't count.
You counted 34 of them as having been victims of White racism. The ADL report itself showed that most of them were not, simple as that. Not my problem if you believed your second-hand Lefty source interpretations and never checked the data yourself - and that’s before we get to talking about how hopeless such small samples are in making such causal, sociological arguments anyway.

Perhaps none of yours are female…..Boys will be boys – in your world anyway.
Ooooo - trying on the Traditional Right Wing Patriarchy stereotype eh, - via Gamergate. Again, pity you don’t know more. There were plenty of female gamers who thought Quin and company were full of shit - and in fact a lot of the counter-attacks were by Progressive Gamers - who were in turn threatened with doxxing, shunning, and in a couple of case, bombthreats.

Gamergate in a nutshell was that one guy found out that his game-designer girlfriend was cheating on him, wrote an agonised blog post about it - revealing in the process that her secret lovers were actually writers in the game-media industry who’d been giving games high ratings for factors unrelated to the actual games (chuckle). Then he got piled on by people saying she had a right to lie to him and sleep around because she was a sad, repressed woman, and then they got piled on by guys saying that she was just a plain old cheater - just like her game critic defenders, and then the SJW types decided all gamer-guys were cave-nerd mysogynists and away it went.

Here’s a Gamer feminist who makes it quite clear that the likes of Quin and Company played fast and loose with truth, victimisation and projecting onto others the very things they were doing - including emotionally fucking over a male just because she could, screaming about her victimhood, and then relying on White Knights to come to her rescue with cries of “Shame, shame”. Go on - call her a RWNJ. Not to mention the woman who dresses up as the Gamergate female avatar.
https://kellyrued.com/2014/09/09/the-gamish-inquinnsition/

As Kelly points out, in the modern world of feminism an ethical approach means you’re upfront about your relationships, rather than just cheating like any shabby, old-fashioned harlot and then whining that you’re dominated by the patriarchy. As went Quin’s sexual ethics, so went the gamer media’s journalist ethics, which is why they were so desperate to attack, shutdown and delete **any** critique of her, and why so many gamers suddenly woke up to the fact that they were “cheaters” too.

Tom Hunter said...

Trump – if he has anything at all aside from a corrupt selfish prick, is an authoritarian fascist who is categorising the mainstream press as enemies of the people.

Chris just had an entire thread on this in which not even your fellow Lefties agreed with that or that he will lead the USA to such, and to which you had no arguments at all. So now you’re back to simple-minded, boiler-plate assertions - which I have to admit fit you better than thinking responses.

As far as the “Press” is concerned the supposedly prestigious NY Times just finished having a whine about Trump’s treatment of the press - and then went out and hired a writer to **their editorial board** who has a long history of Tweets filled with hatred and death wishes for “the race” of White people, as well as Republicans, cops, and expressing the need to stop certain female writers and reporters from “existing”. I’d say ”enemies of the people is a pretty damned good description of such racist, hate-filled filth. Free speech and consequences did you not say? One consequence is my hope that the NYT goes broke.

But I am **so** glad you introduced the subject of gamergate in the same breath as Trump because there is quite a connection there, which you don’t get, and probably never will.

The link between Gamergate and Trump is that the former showed that SJW’s operate entirely within the world of public shame - but have nothing else. When they tried to destroy opponents who were incapable of being shamed (because they were already used to the abuse of being considered worthless nerdy scum), the SJW’s weapons were useless. After that all it took was somebody who was truly shameless, but on the national, political stage. Once Trump stood up, said something outrageous, got shit for it, **and kept doing it anyway**, the spell was broken.

And you lost. And you won’t be able to remake the spell. Ordinary people have woken up to your everyday hysteria of abusing them about being Fascists, mysogynists, “phobics”, Gaia haters and who knows what else. They’re just going to laugh in your face and give you the fingers.

I must say that one of the most pleasing aspects of being here is to see an aging, hardline, Far Lefter like you standing amidst the smoking wreckage of traditional Marxist theory, watching you pile all your hopes onto the new flimsy structures of Identity Politics, Intersectionality Victimhood and Social Justice Activism, seeing it all blow up in your face - and then seeing how alone and isolated you are.

There is justice in this world.

Tom Hunter said...

BTW - since Chris monitors my comments, days can pass before they appear so I can have no idea if your comments are being censored or not, let alone respond to them "instantly". So diddums.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"The link between Gamergate and Trump is that the former showed that SJW’s operate entirely within the world of public shame - but have nothing else. When they tried to destroy opponents who were incapable of being shamed (because they were already used to the abuse of being considered worthless nerdy scum), the SJW’s weapons were useless. After that all it took was somebody who was truly shameless, but on the national, political stage. Once Trump stood up, said something outrageous, got shit for it, **and kept doing it anyway**, the spell was broken. "

So much anger. So much incoherence. One might almost think that a "lefty", or a woman has done your personal wrong. Still Chris will be glad that this is the last time I will acknowledge your existence. All I will say about this is that anyone who ignores, approves of, or as you seem to do glories in the sort of threats that were poured out by these fuckwits is a piss poor excuse for a human being.
And I'm glad in fact that Trump has brought all you alt right/white nationalists/neo-Nazis – or as I prefer to lump you altogether as – Nazis out from under your rocks into the sunlight, where you can be stamped on an consigned to the dustbin of history where you belong.