There’s lots of talk on the libertarian side of the political spectrum about how free speech is the most important thing.

I have some issues with that, honestly, and not only in politics, but also in the sphere of spirituality, so while this will start as a political argument, it will extend beyond that. You see, people confuse the issue of freedom of press, with the issue of speech without consequences. Freedom of the press, in America at least, essentially means that the parliament is prohibited from passing laws that will limit freedom of the press. This means you can basically print whatever you want without suffering legal consequences. However, there will always be consequences. If you print things nobody is interested in, it will not sell and your newspapers will go bankrupt. If you print too many ads, you will annoy people and they will stop buying your stuff. If you print slanderous lies, you will annoy some people, please the wrong kind of people, and your audience will change. With that, your advertisers will change. There will always be consequences to everything you do, so no action is really “free”. Tell the truth, and the liars and evildoers will hate you. Tell lies, and the truthsayers and good people will hate you. Tell unpopular things, and your audience will reduce and you will have conflict. Tell popular things, and you will be rejected by those who admire straightforward expression and honest ideas. Essentially, whatever you do or fail to do, you will always have enemies and opposition, and you will always have support. The thing you need to strive for is to have the right kind of support and the right kind of enemies.

Wanting to have free speech, in a sense of saying anything and experiencing no consequences, is essentially wishing for inconsequential speech. If you said anything relevant, it will raise a shitstorm. If you are unwilling to accept the fact that someone will hate you for what you are saying, and if you’re unwilling to accept the fact that someone might actually kill you for it, you are either prepared to say only inconsequential and uncontroversial things, or you’re a fool. Words are meaningful. Words are the result of thought and precursor to action. Based on words, entire civilizations are built and razed. Billions of people lived and died throughout history based on words. You can say that this happened not because of words but because of intolerance to words, but if you are tolerant to all words, your life is meaningless and you are what the Greeks called a political idiot – someone who is not bothered by things of consequence. You don’t care if women have their clitorises cut of, you don’t care if Jews are exterminated, you don’t care if rich people are taxed, you don’t care if afterlife exists or not, you don’t care if God approves of your actions or not, you don’t care if you will be recruited into an army and killed, you don’t care if your family is sold into slavery or not. Oh really, you do care? And what will you do, how far will you go in either support or opposition to ideas, to mere words? I’ll tell you how far I would go. I would live and die for certain ideas, and kill for others. Is that too intolerant for you, too extreme? And if I told you that I would live for or get killed for the support of anyone’s right to belong to God, for the ability to establish a form of life I see as good and virtuous, for the ability to think, feel and express truth, and I would defend goodness and virtue of others in any way possible. If good people are threatened I would be willing to either take the bullet in their place, or to kill the assailant. You might now say that this is no longer about words, but I disagree, because it starts with thoughts and ideas, progresses into words, and very soon ripens into actions. They first say it’s fine to oppress or kill a certain category of people, not based on individual merit, but on membership to the category. Then they pass laws. It’s still words, mind you, but now those words form basis for actions, and those actions produce suffering and death. Kur’an is just words, Sharia is just words, but based on those words Islamic civilization is made, and this civilization then throws gay people off rooftops, it stones and hangs and beheads people, it oppresses and limits women, it limits freedom of religion, of thought and expression of any kind, forever, unless someone starts killing them back. Words are the main difference between humans and animals. Words are worth killing and dying for.

However, exactly because words are so important, they need to be defeated with other words. If a word is confronted by violence, it remains undefeated and will eventually prevail, because an undefeated word that is opposed by violence will find those who are willing to defend it with violence, and they will win, because their ideas are stronger, strong enough that they could not be confronted by other words, but instead by weapons. Freedom of speech, in that sense, means to battle ideas using better ideas, instead of trying to cut off heads that hold ideas you don’t approve of. However, what do you do if you have defeated the ideas, but their advocates stubbornly remain in opposition to the proven truth, and proceed to sabotage your every attempt? You might actually be forced to eradicate evil ideas by physically killing their proponents, as Nazism was eradicated primarily by culling its proponents; they were either shot during the war, or tried and hanged later. They weren’t argued against indefinitely. In a similar manner, the Catholics had to exterminate the Cathari during the Albigensian Crusade. I say “had to”, because it’s not something optional; you either defend your position to the point of exterminating the opposition, or you are exterminated by the said opposition, to the last man. Some issues are really that important, and there really can be no compromise, because it’s about widely differing views about the purpose of life, purpose and shape of civilization, the direction into which the mankind is heading. It’s in human nature to solve such conflicts with war. You might argue that nothing is more important than human life, but I disagree – issues about the very nature, direction and meaning of human life are by definition what defines the value of human life. If something determines whether your life will be worth living, it’s by definition an issue worth living, dying and killing for. That’s the way things are, and if you disagree, you obviously think that any kind of life is more valuable than no life, but at that point, how do you define what is human?

Freedom of speech as such, and non-violence, as an extension, are valueless, empty things. If you hold values, there will eventually come a point where you will have to confront evil words and deeds, and if you are unwilling to die and kill for your beliefs, that will not stop you from being killed for them. If you are unwilling to stop the enemies of your civilization by force, they will overrun you, kill you, enslave what remains, and make their own civilization in place of yours, and they will then define who is to be killed, who is to be a slave, and crows will feast on the dead eyes of your children. If you are unwilling to kill for your beliefs, people who have no such compunctions will kill you for yours.

The other problem is that God doesn’t give five seconds of a fuck for all those intellectual concepts about rights, freedoms and the like. Every choice has consequences, and the concept of rights and freedoms, in the sense that is used here, doesn’t exist. In theory, you are free to do anything you want, but choices bind you and define you. You can think whatever you want, but thinking changes your spiritual structure, your “wavelength” of energy, so to speak. Think dark thoughts, and you instantly shift planes of existence and are transported to a dark place. Think praise of God’s beauty and greatness and instantly you shift planes and are transported closer to God, as close as your state of consciousness allows. It’s all about “do evil shit, suffer evil consequences”, and “do great shit, suffer great consequences”. Also, the more evil you think and do, the less freedom you have, because evil limits you. You are free to choose it, but you are then enslaved by it and your freedom vanishes. Some choices are irreversible, your soul can lose cohesion and disperse into basic constituents, too small to form anything resembling a consciousness without aggregating into a larger structure by the slow process of spiritual evolution. On the other hand, some choices are so spiritually empowering, they elevate you to the form of existence you were never even able to dream of, before. All freedom, all glory, all beauty comes from God. Consequently, the closer you are to God, the more freedom, beauty, intelligence, consciousness, bliss and reality you possess as a person. I’m telling you this so that you don’t fall into a trap of believing the bullshit that’s widespread here, that you have a right to say whatever you want without consequences. In the spiritual world, where you will find yourself before the Judges, you can be doomed by a single wrong thought. You don’t have any rights or freedoms whatsoever. You have certain qualities and properties, and those determine your destiny. The Judges are not like your earthly judges and politicians, who are elected and have written laws above them. The Judges “up there” are the law. They are literally made from God’s will and righteousness. There’s no court of appeal. Any form of arrogance or spite, such as humans often manifest here, is arrogance and spite in the face of God, and is punishable by utter doom. A question such as “what gives you the right to…” will result in your doom. You don’t have the right to free speech, or to free thought for that matter. Freedom is something that is deserved, by appropriating the qualities of reality, consciousness, proper insight and understanding, by love for truth, beauty and greatness that is God. From this, comes more insight, more realization, more participation in the nature of God, and appropriation of more godliness, more holiness. In holiness, you have freedom of thought, because your thought is free from limitations that are present in the lower planes of consciousness, that are far from the light of God. That’s how things work there. If you fail to understand that, if you behave like humans normally do in this world, with arrogance, spite and stupidity, you will be thrown onto a compost heap of worthless souls, where you will spontaneously degrade after consuming the intrinsic energy of your astral body. Those who told you that you all have souls of equal value and that you are all precious and important, and that you all have rights, lied to you. Those who told you that you have rights before God, and that you should be free to choose your own destiny, failed to mention one tiny detail: that only certain choices lead to life, while others lead to death.

How do you deal with existential threats without hate speech?

Let’s think about this a bit, OK? Hate speech is supposed to be a bad thing, inciting hatred and violence against some group of people. But what if you have a group of people that poses a serious threat to your civilization and threatens to either alter it beyond recognition in a negative way, or outright destroy it? It is politically correct to mention Nazis as one such group – they are commonly accepted as a group that needs to be suppressed in every possible way, and probably the only group against whom hate speech is commonly acceptable. There’s nothing better for virtue-signalling than hate speech against Hitler and the Nazis, right?

However, what about communists? They actually killed more people than the Nazis; the commonly cited numbers are 100 million people killed by the communists, vs. 25 million people killed by the Nazis. Yet, it seems to be popular to declare yourself a “socialist”, speak about social revolution and wear a Che Guevara t-shirt, despite it being a commonly known fact that Che was Fidel Castro’s executioner who personally killed hundreds of people, and wrote about enjoying the feeling immensely. However, I have a feeling that condemning any kind of socialism and putting it on the same level as Nazism would be recognized as some form of hate speech.

If so, I’m all for hate speech. Hate speech is great, I love it. It’s an intellectual immune response against abject evil. Everybody should practice it, in moderation of course, and it should be seen as the most normal response when faced with villainy and evil. You see it, you feel revulsion and hatred for evil, you speak out against it in clear terms. Evil political ideologies, that intend to transform civilization into Gulag archipelago and killing fields and concentration camps need to be hated and condemned.

However, how far is it permissible to go with this? Hate speech, yes, definitely. However, I am rather uncertain about active measures, such as the use of violence against proponents of evil ideologies. It looks like a slippery slope where you’re so effective at fighting monsters that you become one yourself, as Nietzsche would say. Fighting for peace or killing for non-violence sounds very much like fucking for virginity. You can’t use the means that are inherently opposite to your goals. Or can you?

Can you imprison Nazis for denying Holocaust and praising Hitler? Or does it oppose the very tissue of tolerance that is supposed to make up our civilization? Can you imprison people for tolerance, or is it akin to fucking for virginity?

However, let’s explore another possibility – it’s not about tolerance at all. What if “tolerance” is just a bullshit word that was simply pulled out of someone’s arse, just like the concept of human rights, in order to obscure a deeper, yet inconvenient truth: that our society was built on the basis of a Graeco-Roman philosophy and law, Christian ethics, and scientific approach to the physical universe? What if tolerance and human rights had nothing whatsoever to do with it, and were invented by someone who didn’t like Christianity and wanted to do away with it, similar to AD (Anno Domini, year of the Lord) designations being replaced by the CE (Current Era)? What made our civilization great is neither tolerance, nor adherence to the concept of human rights. Our civilization, in fact, put a man on the Moon before those concepts were even accepted in the common discourse. I would actually go so far as to state that the acceptance of tolerance as a virtue, and acceptance of the concept of human rights as a basis of law, is the point where our civilization started collapsing and decaying to the point where it isn’t worth fighting for unless we abandon those two parasitic concepts and go back to the roots, to the real reasons why our civilization is great.

The Nazis were not defeated because we were tolerant. They were defeated because we had more guns and soldiers than they did. That’s all there is to it – the Nazis were defeated not because they were necessarily a philosophical evil, but because we killed more of them than they killed us. The victors in this bloody war then invented all sorts of rationalizations about why this was some cosmic fight of good against evil, to make it seem it was all worth it, but the fact is, we don’t even know if the Nazis would have killed the Jews in the concentration camps and resorted to various evils had they not been violently opposed by other countries. They did attempt to deport the Jews into Israel, for instance, and had they not been opposed in that, and had that succeeded, they would have simply get rid of all their “undesirables” that way, and we would have the state of Israel that we have today, and Hitler would get on with his megalomaniacal architectural projects in the capital of Germania. I am certain that, had there not been a war, the Germans would eventually get rid of the Nazis, just like the Russians got rid of the communists. The best way of keeping arseholes in power is to oppose them by a foreign threat. Without a credible foreign threat that would marshal the population into submission, the dictatorial regimes have to accept blame for their own failures. So, if the Nazis proved to be incompetent rulers, I seriously doubt they would manage to stay in power “for a thousand years”.

The reason why Nazism and Communism were perceived as aberrations is that they abandoned the common core of our civilization, which is Christianity. They are both Modernist ideologies that wanted to get rid of the Christian heritage and replace it with something new and “better”. They killed so many people because they had no compunctions about destroying the “ancien regime” they hated, in a way very similar to the bloodbath that was the French revolution. In a very real way, all those revolutionary regimes show what people are capable of when they don’t expect to be judged for their actions by God. If there is no judgement other than by “history” or “mankind”, if there is no good greater than the good of your political class, race or nation, what is there to stop you from just wiping out everything you don’t like? It’s not tolerance that stops the Christians from killing people. It’s the faith in resurrection, the faith in the afterlife, the faith that this world isn’t all there is, the faith that you cannot solve problems by outright slaughter, because your war isn’t against the flesh, but against the evil spirit of Satan (Ephesians 6:12). A Christian doesn’t attempt to solve problems by killing his religious and philosophical opposition, but by defeating it in both debate and in the criterion of fruits – a Christian desires to be the tree that bears the best of fruits, and here we come to the true reason why our civilization out-competed every other in good results. Science itself was invented by Christians who wanted to mine the physical world for truths and goodness infused into it by its Creator. That’s all there is to it. Science isn’t some eternal opposition to Christianity, as atheists would want to convince you. Science is a tool invented by the Christians in order to explore God’s creation and to praise Him by bearing the abundant fruits of knowledge. Only later was it hijacked by the modernists, by those who wanted to get rid of God and Christianity and create their own kind of order, watering the earth with human blood in the process. They, the murderers, the evil ones, are the originators of the concepts of tolerance and human rights, because they needed those empty and meaningless words as something to put in place of God’s law and God’s judgement as the reasons to be and do good.

What made our civilization great is the Augustinian interpretation of Christianity, the concept of Creation as the process of progressive revelation of God through greater knowledge of both the spiritual truths and the physical world. This understanding is what gave birth to science and technology, and it was later hijacked by the Nazis and the Communists and other Modernist ideologues who tried to uproot science from its Christian origins and use it as a weapon in the hands of the atheists that can be used to violently hammer God out of the minds of people.

This Augustinian understanding of the Catholic Church is in complete opposition to the “sola scriptura” principle of the Bible-fanatics, who don’t understand that the Bible itself doesn’t exist as they understand it, as a singular document of revelation, but as a progressive emergence of religious concepts in the minds of people. As the Catholics understand it, this process of revelation didn’t end with the formulation of the final canon of the Bible. No, it just took other forms – of revelations by saints, of saintly and good deeds of people, of science and technology. The fact that the Bible stops telling the story at a certain point in time doesn’t mean that God stopped talking. Some of the things He had to say took form of this computer I’m using now in order to write this. That’s what I mean when I say that the core of our civilization, what makes it great, is the Augustinian interpretation of Christianity.

It is not great because it is inherently tolerant. In fact, I would argue that it is inherently intolerant, and that it needs to be. It needs to testify its own truth, by living its own ideals and heritage, and producing great things as a testament of living according to God’s plans, because all those great fruits of science are the results of figuring out how the world really works.

And when we figure out what our roots are, when we figure out what made our civilization great, how it became so much superior to everything produced in China or Africa or all those tribes everywhere, we will reclaim our rightful place in the world: of teachers and masters, rather than the guilt-ridden people who need to watch every word in order not to offend some tribe of fucking idiots who understand both God and the world wrong, which is why their civilizations are worthless and they all come to the Christian-made paradises of the West to get some of that. And the irony is, instead of changing in order to be more like us, and therefore better, they try to change us in order to be more like them, not understanding that being like them is the very reason why their own countries are hellholes from which they are now escaping. Their countries are hellholes because they lived there. When they migrate over here, without changing their evil ways, they will turn this place into a hellhole, too. What we need to do is make them either change, to make them reject whatever stupid bullshit they used to believe and practice in their own shitty countries, and to accept our superior ways and beliefs, or get the fuck out to wherever they came from, and now. That’s all there is to it. We need to stop apologizing for being better than everybody else. We need to embrace our right to rule the world, given to us by the very simple virtue of being the ones who figured it out.