Many people on the traditional right of western politics are naturally repelled by the notion of censorship, due to their libertarian views on such matters and more recently, their use of alternative media sources which the current establishment are attempting to censor. However, with the predicament in which we find ourselves in the west and the English speaking world in particular, there is a strong case for censoring certain ideas that could be classed as subversive or that are undermining the traditional structures of our societies.
Of course, we are the underdogs, therefore we crave the information that the current establishment is trying to hide from us. We want the news about the failings of their refugee policies, for example, which they go to great lengths to cover up. We want to know about dodgy deals and deceitful activities of our politicians, the information about which is so hard to come by. We want to know all these things, which are currently under the remit of the alternative media, whom in turn the establishment institutions are attempting to censor.
However, if the shoe were on the other foot so to speak, would we not change our views on the matter? Perhaps if we were setting the political agenda we may think twice about this treasured notion of free speech that we currently are fighting to protect. For example, would we wish to continue to allow the mainstream media outlets – that reach millions of viewers per day – to continue to attack all the traditional societal norms that we hold dear?
To take the British media as an example, it has been admitted in their own words that the most read newspapers at the corporation are the Guardian and more recently, the more recently the Morning Star (former Communist Party of Great Britain newspaper). Former BBC News and Current Affairs presenter Peter Sissons admitted that these are the papers often used by presenters and editors for inspiration and agenda setting, so why would we wish to allow these people to continue feeding the British public with Marxist ideas taken from Marxist newspapers?
Radical feminism, affirmative action, anti-white propaganda, mass immigration advocacy, anti-Christian, globalist, anti-family, pro-LGBT – these are the sorts of ideas that are promoted on a daily basis by newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent, the Morning Star and so on, and in television the BBC, ITV News and Sky News amongst others. What possesses us to continue to give these people the airtime to propagate these ideas? These people are taking advantage of the western virtues of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and using them against us. To them, freedom of the press equates to freedom to subvert, break down and destroy everything we hold dear. It is poisoning the minds of the people with lies dreamt up at the Frankfurt School.
To put it another way, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are brilliant peacetime virtues, established in our nations during times of harmony. When a nation is at war, these freedoms are suspended in defence of the realm, as they should be. For example, there is no way at all that between 1939-45 any British press outlet would have been allowed to print anything in support of accepting Hitler’s repeated peace offers, nor would they have been allowed to print anything that was against the continuation of this so-called virtuous war. Pro-peace radicals such as Oswald Mosley and his blackshirts were imprisoned for the duration of the war for exercising their right to free speech. Similarly, was communist propaganda allowed centre-stage in the United States of America during the height of the Cold War? Absolutely not.
Similarly, this was an issue that was valid in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Faced with the threat of communism sweeping through Africa at the time, along with the liberal media (many of who’s outlets were secretly backed by the Soviet Union), Ian Smith’s Rhodesian Front government made the decision to prevent the press from printing certain things that may undermine their struggle to preserve what they had built in their nation. They were fighting the Bush War on all fronts and could not allow the press to aid the black nationalist enemy.
Now, we are at war again, are we not? Europe is being invaded, radical Islamic terrorists are blowing up and shooting up our cities, families enjoying an evening out are being cut down by Arabs in hijacked trucks, mini-colonies are popping up so that our suburbs are beginning to resemble Bangladesh – are these not the conditions present in a state of war?
And who are the main advocates of the enemy? Our media! The left-wing newspapers and the 24-hour news channels are misleading the people to subvert our society and making it more and more difficult for us to win this war. They are engaging in psychological warfare against our populations in order to advance their political cause, they wish to see this multicultural, multi-ethnic utopia of liberal democracy that simply cannot exist in reality, yet they are prepared to ignore all the bombings, the knife attacks and the rapes committed against our people that happen as a direct result of the politics they support.
It is in fact an outrage that these people should be allowed to continue to do this. Are we really willing to throw away thousands of years of civilisation in the name of press freedom? Are we so committed to our ‘liberal democracy’ that we will throw everything we have built down the drain, or worse, hand it over to foreign elements that will only destroy it anyway?
If we look at this in the context of the bigger picture in Europe, that is, thousands of years of European civilisation, then really we are being very stubborn and illogical by refusing to entertain any idea of censorship based on principle. Yes, it may be very admirable to hold these positions of principle, these notions of freedom, but when your freedoms have been destroyed permanently, you will certainly regret not altering them temporarily.