Misconceptions About Free Speech & Domination

One of the biggest weaknesses of the West, and of America in particular, is it’s naivety against predators utilizing the liberties of the West to exploit and engineer the downfall of the West.  This means using the free market to create a corporate monopoly as a means of ending open competition, and using the freedoms of speech as a means of ending free speech and individual autonomy. As an example of this, Robert Baldwin, the founder of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) had this to say about using liberty to destroy liberty:

“I am for Socialism, disarmament and, ultimately for abolishing the State itself… I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM IS THE GOAL.” ~Roger Baldwin, 1938

“We want to, also, look like patriots in everything we do. We want to get a good lot of flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make out of this country and to show that we are the fellows that really stand up for the spirit of our institutions.” ~Roger Baldwin

Unfortunately, there’s a popular misconception among the political right about the necessity to encourage a diversity of thought and speech when the intention of the opposing ideas are meant to systematically remove their natural God-given rights, through dominating them with the opposition’s intellect, emotions, speech, and ultimately securing the instrument of government sanctioned force as their final destination. When somebody is attempting to dominate another person or group with their ideas, with the intent to gain power over them, that is not free speech, but an act of manipulation, and possibly even an act of war (see John Locke quote below). A classically liberal society should not reward such behavior, nor encourage it under the banner of free speech, but meet it with an appropriate measure of defensive force that correlates to the infraction used against them.

“THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common-law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.”

~John Locke, “On Government 2”, §16

Can you imagine a group of people openly talking about taking away your rights through dominating you with intellectual, emotional, and even physical force—this would be unlawful, right? Unfortunately, it has been tolerated for too long; for example, Saul Alinsky, the mentor to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, wrote a book called “Rules for Radicals” in which he gave specific techniques to effectively dominate people into submitting to their radical ideological viewpoints. I wish I could say this was a hidden conspiracy, but their calls for the destruction of liberty and your individual rights have been out in the open and available for all to see.

To me, this is equivalent to the criminal activity of inciting violence against another person, which is not protected as free speech, but since the perpetrators are doing so gradually rather than all at once, and focusing on an altruistic ends as the reasoning behind the destruction of your individual rights, it has been given a free pass and allowed to proceed uncontested. They’re in the long game with their thinking, while the lovers of liberty and individual rights have been naive, and in the short game with their thinking—and this has been why those who wish to ultimately dominate us with the instrument of government force have been able to openly engineer our downfall over a gradual period of time, and have been able to use the protections of liberty to do so.

“In politics, gradualism is the hypothesis that social change can be achieved in small, discrete increments rather than in abrupt strokes such as revolutions or uprisings. Gradualism is one of the defining features of political liberalism and reformism. Machiavellian politics pushes politicians to espouse gradualism.

In socialist politics and within the socialist movement, the concept of gradualism is frequently distinguished from reformism, with the former insisting that short-term goals need to be formulated and implemented in such a way that they inevitably lead into long-term goals. It is most commonly associated with the libertarian socialist concept of dual power and is seen as a middle way between reformism and revolutionism.”

~Wikipedia

It is my opinion that this is criminal behavior, and that those who wish to dominate others through the initiation of force, either from openly inciting violence, or from gradually moving towards political violence in their long game, should be held accountable for their unlawful behaviors.


On a note about voting/suffrage, I’ve come to the conclusion that only competent (and natural, see the screenshot of the legal definition) persons should be able to vote, and by competent I mean that they are capable of self-governing in a respectful manner that A) does not threaten the well-being of others, and B) is educated in common law, values negative law, and abhors positive law (positive law: legalized plunder, whether or not it’s done by the few or the many, and whether or not it’s done for the “greater good”). Incompetent people do not get a say about how I live my life; voting is only a right if it has been earned and claimed by reasonable people. This is about having minimum standards that govern those we enter into an agreement with, and not about discriminating against superficial character traits such as race, religion, or gender.

According to natural law, neither children nor predators get a say, because children have not yet demonstrated their competence, and predators forfeit their natural rights due to their predatory nature. Under this definition a physical adult can still be considered a child if they have not yet aligned themselves with the law of reason, and have not yet demonstrated their intellectual and emotional competence. This isn’t about silencing reasonable discourse, but about dismissing those who are incapable of reasonable discourse.

The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non-age, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to; for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a free man, the son is a free man too. ~John Locke, “On Government 2”, §58

John Locke defines adults as those who are aligned with and subject to the law of reason, while children are those who are not yet capable of understanding, as understanding is the product of reason.  As adults are only governed by reason itself, children are meant to be governed by reasonable adults. Those who are of a physically adult age but are without reason are subject to being governed by others, as they have not subjected themselves to the law of reason, either through parental neglect, because of their own incompetence, or because of external predatory influences that may have intentionally stunted their intellectual and emotional growth. While they should be rehabbed and given the opportunity to progress into mature adults subject to the law of reason, they should not be given an equal say through universal voting rights/suffrage, no more than an illegal alien who does not share our values and/or ability to reason be given universal voting rights/suffrage. Competency must be demonstrated for such rights to be earned.

About Nathan & Aline