To Me, “free speech” means the freedom to speak. It does not mean that the content necessarily deserves positive social currency. You can call Me a bitch, but that does not mean I will praise You for what You said.
So the right to speak is absolute. There is no right to have Others accept the content of what You delivered.
And I answered with this perspective. So I got B on the first and A on the rest.
And I surely do not fall into any of that last list of bullet points in the least. If I wasn't so grossly shadow-banned I suspect My ideas would have circled the globe. I could be wrong...
Yes, I would agree on the broadest scope of fundamentally granted rights that a person has the right to express their opinion first and foremost.
LOL on your last point, I at times am inclined to feel a very similar way -- the Herodian rulers of our world certainly don't want those of us "knowing too much" and who tend to talk "too much" to also be heard too much, I would imagine.
It's a challenge sharing ideas when the Ones who own what One is using and stifle One don't want what You have to say out there. Haha! But I will keep plugging!
Hello, Jasmine, good seeing you around, and hope all is well for you.
So as to Communists... whew, alright, there's plenty to dissect, and I'll begin by subdividing them into three broad categories (just a generalization for the meantime):
1. first off, you have the highly initiated old leaders of actual Communist regimes who were puppets of the Jesuit Order and funded into power, directly or indirectly, by the Scottish Rite Freemasonic Anglo-American financial-intelligence complex -- I know with high certainty Lenin and Fidel Castro were mentored and ushered into power with Jesuit assistance, and Mao to some extent as well; so the actual operators of past Communist governments tied to the Soviet intel complex were clandestine tools of the Jesuit-Freemasonic hierarchy (I can give you additional details as you request)
2. next off, there are the brainwashed rank-and-file masses in Communist movements who, unfortunately, tend to believe the outwardly presented "dialectical materialist" teachings and all their accompanying falsehoods i.e. that "the state will wither away," "socialism will replace nationalism entirely," "classes will become abolished," etc. etc. -- unfortunately, whether many of these people are of good faith or not, the Communists of this specific category tend to firmly believe those outwardly presented dogmas against the repeated lessons of Communist regimes disproving Marxist myths; for instance, the USSR became hyper-nationalist and merged nationalistic patriotism into its "socialist" ideology instead of negating nationalism in its entirety by any stretch
3. finally, there are those Communists who pragmatically and earnestly seek the path of reconciliation and reform, but unfortunately these appear to be few in number and drowned out by the second category a.k.a. diehard shills; I might have to look into this tidbit more, but I believe during the Italian Years of Lead, the PCI (Italian Communist Party) was actually of a democratically parliamentarian orientation and sought a "clerico-Communist" grassroots alliance of socialist and Catholic working class interests against the right-wing elite and were as a result viciously targeted by the Scottish Rite Freemasonic Propaganda Due (P-2) lodge and all its neofascist terrorist affiliates -- even more curiously implicating, Soviet intelligence was exposed as a collaborator to P-2 neofascist counterinsurgency, and perhaps the KGB was actually conspiring the whole time to undermine the PCI
So in terms of my critique against Communists, I would like to point out I acknowledge first and foremost not all "Communists" are cut from the same cloth and some, especially historically, were heroes in their own right in the fight against clerical rightist fascism. My problem with Communism is the fact its top-down ideological "hierarchy" is unfortunately -- based off careful studies of Marxism's origins and Bolshevism's created purposes -- a duplicitous flavor of mass manipulation used to serve the Anglo-American and Jesuit-Maltese elites' long-term objectives (in a most abridged summary, let's just say that Marxism was actually set up by DESIGN to fail so a gaping ideological void would be created for the elites to justify fascism). I explained some of the extensive details here: https://adversusbabylon.substack.com/p/anglosubversion-commuzionism
On anarchy: my own personal standpoint is that I individually don't view anarchy as an ideally stable governing condition of human society especially in the times we live in, but that's a *l o n g* rabbit hole tied to my present understanding of II Thess. 2, II Peter 2/Jude, and some other heavily theological studies tied to my religious outlook. Nonetheless, I can respect individual libertarians, socialists, and anarchists who ground their perspectives on sterling moral integrity and well-pondered considerations, and am happy to respectfully discuss differences of opinion on the matter of "ideal governance."
No such thing as "governance." That's hierarchical thinking. No hierarchies. People are perfectly capable of organizing horizontally. Humans had been doing it for thousands upon thousands of years. Govern = rule over. Fuck that. No gods. No masters. Community care. No one has power over anyone. No one can take away your bodily autonomy. If you have a government, you're not free and you never will be. The Western governments are mass slaughtering us. Look at what the Dutch and French did in Africa. Or what the British did in North America and Australia. What the US, UK, are doing in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. All for money.
Sorry about my replying a bit late here -- got a bit mentally overwhelmed all over the place in this semi-harrowing plane of existence I'm still trapped in...
I think I see where you're coming from, and in *ideal* terms that would be nice. The problem is that not everyone are like you or I, and that "not everyone" covers a very, very large majority of the population, because the majority of humanity prefers cultic groupthink and ego-trip indulgence over humility and critical thinking. In the depressing and very real state of reality, anarchy generates boundless mob rule that quickly spirals into a dystopia worse than Herodian authoritarianism.
Here's the key thing to understand: the reason all of humanity is trapped under an oppressive hierarchy of authoritarian suppression is not because that form of governance was made "for" the children of light. It's actually installed to contain the sinister, depraved capabilities man possesses and which must be kept within an utmost-basic boundary, and the suffering inflicted upon the upright minority of humanity's residents is the side effect and not core intention.
The reason evil has culminated to the level it's reached in our current state of humanity is because the "traditional" Herodian authoritarian hierarchy is facing a topsy-turvy inversion where the channeled strains of rebellion inculcated in both "left-wing" populist (whether of the MSM corporate-astroturfed est. liberal or controlled-opposition "anti-establishment" flavor, it doesn't matter, as both serve Masonic-Zionist objectives) and "right-wing populist" (a.k.a. Trumpist neofascism) factions gaining institutional footing in ideological representation. And this is by design: the old boundaries in the ancien regime hierarchy are removed so the entire pool is spread out into a single plane allowing evil to become unchained on full display and hardly anyone can truly differentiate good from evil anymore.
Yes, your undergirding points are indeed valid, Jasmine, and I wholeheartedly sympathize with your standing because both you and I are rightfully fed up with the capitalist-fascist-Zionist-Masonic shitholes so crudely and cheaply pillaging humanity. At the same time, let's take a step back at least once in a while and consider what "freedom" is. Without boundaries and self-restraint, can there be freedom?
Can any young woman freely walk through an alley in the middle of the night if there is no societal restraint preventing men from devolving into Social Darwinist right-wing misogynistic savages holding no respect for feminine dignity?
Of course not. Which means moral restraint instilled upon the individual is a prerequisite for the freedom of all human beings in any society. Which means, in a world of sinful human beings, some form of basic governance is a necessity lest the entire collective of humanity long face extinction because they killed each other if not the outcome being whoever ascends to power is a far, far worse hyper-totalitarian dictator than the original Herodian rulers installed to instill societal order.
Am I saying this in defense of the present global regime? Of course not -- the modern state of reality is actually the product of ungodly rebellion inverting the natural hierarchy into a cesspool of Babylonian mystic/cabalistic perdition imposed at the cultural level of society. But anyhow, Jasmine, hopefully you find my analysis here at least worth pondering over if it's of value.
Women can't do that now. Women are one of the biggest victims of capitalism and state control. So yeah, it's fucking personal. The governments in red states are gleefully taking away women's right to bodily autonomy. The federal government is trying to outlaw birth control. Hierarchies are bad, mmmkay.
Hmm... if by "women's right to bodily autonomy" you're referring to what I assume, then notwithstanding my potentially different stance on the issue, I think I broadly see where you're coming from.
If it helps, try to keep in mind all mainstream "cultural norms" and common thinking patterns (both "left-wing" and "right-wing") concurrent to corporate-astroturfed ideological umbrellas and popular mass movements are part of a self-fulfilling prophecy ouroboros game operating out of a preplanned script. (of course, I receive the quickly slapped designation of "conspiracy theorist" for thinking about this too much, LOL)
For instance:
- when a mass shooting happens, don't fall into the liberal trap of instantaneously blaming gun owners and AR-15 manufacturers, but consider the possibility FBI/NSA overlords knew the shooting was going to happen and allowed it to happen on purpose
- when liberal/globalist propaganda pushes endless war against Russia in the name of "defending Ukraine," don't jump aboard the dualist train believing the issue is "Ukraine = good, Russia = bad," but consider whether the West intentionally *wanted* Russia to invade Ukraine (spoiler: as documented by The Dissident over here, there is indeed evidence the previous Vegetocratic Fuhrer administration of Biden, Nuland, and Blinken actively provoked Russian aggression against Ukraine: https://the307.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-negotiations-should-have)
- when Western right-wing Zionist scums begin lopsidedly and co-opting concerns of "Islamic extremism" to justify Islamophobic warmongering or domestic civil liberty violations, consider whether the CIA-MI6 intelligence masters had a hand consciously proliferating such episodes of Islamic extremism
Of course, I hope the last point out of three three already resonates with your observations? There is a very strong point I'm hoping to articulate with clarity here: it's generally of discernment-edifying value sometimes to take a step back sometimes and think about whether common stances on issues, especially very emotionally charged ones, are easily manipulable and herded into unconscious tools serving the clandestine world control reactionary ultraconservative elites.
Here's the thing about birth control and/or abortion, especially if the latter point is what you're referencing: both industries are run by the same corporatist/capitalist Morgan-Rockefeller overlords working in tandem with the MIC-Zionist fascist elites. Just as Zionism was never promoted for the actual betterment of Jewish people, neither is the abortion industry's cultural glamorization of abortion as "women's rights" actually about feminine empowerment. Their goal is to keep women single and separated away from familial love: dividing and conquering the family so women view children as a liability and husbands as domineering selfish masculists. Weak families --> morally weak society unable to resist systemic communal brainwash --> widespread fascist/controlled-opposition brainwash hoodwinking the youth into extremist and reactionary ideologies.
From what I've heard, Western feminist circles of the woke realm have recently drifted into a realm of "posthumanist" ideology. The cultural Western "far left" embodied in the woke-CRT-intersectional-"feminist" umbrella and the cultural Western "far right" manifested in Elon Musk's technocratic wing of crypto blowhards, toxic-masculine Andrew Tate-worshiping wannabe "alpha males," neofascist faux-"social conservatives," and neo-Nazis are two sides to the same coin: whether emphasized as "left-wing" neo-Marxist posthumanism or "right-wing" neofascist/neo-Nazi transhumanism, the end result is a neo-Babylonian cultural-Kabbalistic form of Shinar-Nimrod Gnostic spiritual rebellion assuming the ability to transcend beyond the "inferior" material human body. Simply put, both the "social liberal" and "social conservative" realms of the present-day Western mess are Gnostic cults without even realizing it.
Side note: sorry about taking a while to get back to you, Jasmine. -- this week has been a *slight* mess for me as all the previous months of my miserable existence has increasingly wallowed in. Anyhow, I hope my reply here is additional food for thought you find of possible value to think over for yourself a bit. I understand these feminine issues are presumably a sensitive topic for you, and please know I try to expound upon my own analysis of these "social issues" without provoking affrontation since I regard you as a decent and kind friend.
By women's rights I mean the unalien right to CONTROL MY OWN BODY. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE POWER OVER ANYONE. Let's say we come up with a law that ALL 18 year old men get a vasectomy until they're married and financially and emotionally stable enough to have children. That would certainly cut down on unwanted pregnancies. And we can talk about the French woman whose husband drugged her, raped her, and let other men rape her. Or we can talk about how 95% of violent crime is committed by men. The vast majority of people think abortion should be legal across the board because NOBODY WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THEIR BODIES.
What do you mean by “free speech absolutism”? What do you mean by “free speech”? How does the freedom of a Sovereign person as a “given” fit into the discussion?
When I put "free speech absolutism" in quotation marks, I'm referring to the one-dimensional mentality of commonplace modern political thought treating the free speech issue as total censorship and totalitarianism on one contrasted to (the false pretense of) "liberty," "total free expression," and utopian delights of free exchange on the opposite end where no speech is supposedly barred from public visibility and where *supposedly* there are no censors.
That treatment of the free speech issue as a one-dimensional spectrum is a false binary narrative designed to obfuscate the fact "unrestricted free speech" has at this point been channeled and manipulated into cesspools of intel-shaped controlled opposition narratives where absolute "free"-dom of expression is granted towards bots, corporate-owned squawk-boxes, CIA-MI6-Moshutzstaffelad assets, and gnostic empty talkers to be "free"-ly elevated by algorithmic adjustments as the proxy narrative controllers brainwashing the users of "absolutist free speech" platforms such as Substack into at the end of the day bootlicking for the same Anglo-MIC-Zionist-Maltese empire owning the censorship-imposing mass media platforms.
My article here implicitly divides the topic of free speech into two categories: authentic free speech that secures the freedom of individual conscience to freely express their humanity, and "free speech" (in quotation marks) as a fake narrative that has been hijacked and parasitically co-opted by controlled opposition assets for the empirical fascists who seek to reduce humanity into one unthinking pool of integrated machine components a.k.a. enslaved serfs.
> "How does the freedom of a Sovereign person as a 'given' fit into the discussion?"
Did you read the article, Don? I articulated in hopefully clear-enough terms the importance of people at the level of individual conscientious human beings exchanging dialogue of edifying value.
Damn. I couldn't have said it better. I've always had an issue with "free speech." The first amendment was meant to allow reporters and regular people the right to criticize the government without being disappeared. We know hateful speech is dangerous. Hatred is taught and Twitter, Facebook et al are soaked in it. Once again a "right" has been co-opted and used against us.
Glad to hear we largely agree on this part! Yes, precisely so: journalists and independent muckrakers should have the right to expose the truth without facing Arkancidal threats of forced disappearances.
On the issue of "hate speech," this is part of the subtle delineation implied in my broader analysis, and at least my perspective here is that it's split into the "public vs. private" issue: in a purely 100% public space, an individual should have the right to express whatever opinion, no matter how "extreme" it is so long as it's not direct incitement to violence against innocent individual people or ambiguously "collective" groups, because it's in a public space where people can just walk by and ignore so long as the speech remains part of peaceful civil dissent (if a random Holocaust denier wants to debate in civil terms exactly how many millions died in WWII, that's not the same thing as a band of FBI-deployed neo-Nazi goons screaming threats against minorities -- not that I'm saying this to defend Holocaust denial, obviously, just to point out the fundamental distinction between civil/peaceful speech and violence-inciting forms). However, privately owned and especially smaller-discussion spaces are a completely story, and 100% there should not be "unrestrained free speech" there because people committed to moral uprightness have a social responsibility to police and restrain ill-faith co-optation schemes.
You know."”””””” I don’t remember. I appreciate you expanding the scope of your thoughts. And I think your last comment sums it up. About …………Freedom and Sovereignty. These are not words……they mean freedom for freedoms sake but for only “he” …that knows he is free. And if you read on…..or maybe you have, then you know Emmanuel the deliverer of Freedom. Don
To Me, “free speech” means the freedom to speak. It does not mean that the content necessarily deserves positive social currency. You can call Me a bitch, but that does not mean I will praise You for what You said.
So the right to speak is absolute. There is no right to have Others accept the content of what You delivered.
And I answered with this perspective. So I got B on the first and A on the rest.
And I surely do not fall into any of that last list of bullet points in the least. If I wasn't so grossly shadow-banned I suspect My ideas would have circled the globe. I could be wrong...
Yes, I would agree on the broadest scope of fundamentally granted rights that a person has the right to express their opinion first and foremost.
LOL on your last point, I at times am inclined to feel a very similar way -- the Herodian rulers of our world certainly don't want those of us "knowing too much" and who tend to talk "too much" to also be heard too much, I would imagine.
It's a challenge sharing ideas when the Ones who own what One is using and stifle One don't want what You have to say out there. Haha! But I will keep plugging!
What do you have against Communists? Are you against anarchists too?
Hello, Jasmine, good seeing you around, and hope all is well for you.
So as to Communists... whew, alright, there's plenty to dissect, and I'll begin by subdividing them into three broad categories (just a generalization for the meantime):
1. first off, you have the highly initiated old leaders of actual Communist regimes who were puppets of the Jesuit Order and funded into power, directly or indirectly, by the Scottish Rite Freemasonic Anglo-American financial-intelligence complex -- I know with high certainty Lenin and Fidel Castro were mentored and ushered into power with Jesuit assistance, and Mao to some extent as well; so the actual operators of past Communist governments tied to the Soviet intel complex were clandestine tools of the Jesuit-Freemasonic hierarchy (I can give you additional details as you request)
2. next off, there are the brainwashed rank-and-file masses in Communist movements who, unfortunately, tend to believe the outwardly presented "dialectical materialist" teachings and all their accompanying falsehoods i.e. that "the state will wither away," "socialism will replace nationalism entirely," "classes will become abolished," etc. etc. -- unfortunately, whether many of these people are of good faith or not, the Communists of this specific category tend to firmly believe those outwardly presented dogmas against the repeated lessons of Communist regimes disproving Marxist myths; for instance, the USSR became hyper-nationalist and merged nationalistic patriotism into its "socialist" ideology instead of negating nationalism in its entirety by any stretch
3. finally, there are those Communists who pragmatically and earnestly seek the path of reconciliation and reform, but unfortunately these appear to be few in number and drowned out by the second category a.k.a. diehard shills; I might have to look into this tidbit more, but I believe during the Italian Years of Lead, the PCI (Italian Communist Party) was actually of a democratically parliamentarian orientation and sought a "clerico-Communist" grassroots alliance of socialist and Catholic working class interests against the right-wing elite and were as a result viciously targeted by the Scottish Rite Freemasonic Propaganda Due (P-2) lodge and all its neofascist terrorist affiliates -- even more curiously implicating, Soviet intelligence was exposed as a collaborator to P-2 neofascist counterinsurgency, and perhaps the KGB was actually conspiring the whole time to undermine the PCI
So in terms of my critique against Communists, I would like to point out I acknowledge first and foremost not all "Communists" are cut from the same cloth and some, especially historically, were heroes in their own right in the fight against clerical rightist fascism. My problem with Communism is the fact its top-down ideological "hierarchy" is unfortunately -- based off careful studies of Marxism's origins and Bolshevism's created purposes -- a duplicitous flavor of mass manipulation used to serve the Anglo-American and Jesuit-Maltese elites' long-term objectives (in a most abridged summary, let's just say that Marxism was actually set up by DESIGN to fail so a gaping ideological void would be created for the elites to justify fascism). I explained some of the extensive details here: https://adversusbabylon.substack.com/p/anglosubversion-commuzionism
On anarchy: my own personal standpoint is that I individually don't view anarchy as an ideally stable governing condition of human society especially in the times we live in, but that's a *l o n g* rabbit hole tied to my present understanding of II Thess. 2, II Peter 2/Jude, and some other heavily theological studies tied to my religious outlook. Nonetheless, I can respect individual libertarians, socialists, and anarchists who ground their perspectives on sterling moral integrity and well-pondered considerations, and am happy to respectfully discuss differences of opinion on the matter of "ideal governance."
No such thing as "governance." That's hierarchical thinking. No hierarchies. People are perfectly capable of organizing horizontally. Humans had been doing it for thousands upon thousands of years. Govern = rule over. Fuck that. No gods. No masters. Community care. No one has power over anyone. No one can take away your bodily autonomy. If you have a government, you're not free and you never will be. The Western governments are mass slaughtering us. Look at what the Dutch and French did in Africa. Or what the British did in North America and Australia. What the US, UK, are doing in Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon. All for money.
Sorry about my replying a bit late here -- got a bit mentally overwhelmed all over the place in this semi-harrowing plane of existence I'm still trapped in...
I think I see where you're coming from, and in *ideal* terms that would be nice. The problem is that not everyone are like you or I, and that "not everyone" covers a very, very large majority of the population, because the majority of humanity prefers cultic groupthink and ego-trip indulgence over humility and critical thinking. In the depressing and very real state of reality, anarchy generates boundless mob rule that quickly spirals into a dystopia worse than Herodian authoritarianism.
Here's the key thing to understand: the reason all of humanity is trapped under an oppressive hierarchy of authoritarian suppression is not because that form of governance was made "for" the children of light. It's actually installed to contain the sinister, depraved capabilities man possesses and which must be kept within an utmost-basic boundary, and the suffering inflicted upon the upright minority of humanity's residents is the side effect and not core intention.
The reason evil has culminated to the level it's reached in our current state of humanity is because the "traditional" Herodian authoritarian hierarchy is facing a topsy-turvy inversion where the channeled strains of rebellion inculcated in both "left-wing" populist (whether of the MSM corporate-astroturfed est. liberal or controlled-opposition "anti-establishment" flavor, it doesn't matter, as both serve Masonic-Zionist objectives) and "right-wing populist" (a.k.a. Trumpist neofascism) factions gaining institutional footing in ideological representation. And this is by design: the old boundaries in the ancien regime hierarchy are removed so the entire pool is spread out into a single plane allowing evil to become unchained on full display and hardly anyone can truly differentiate good from evil anymore.
Yes, your undergirding points are indeed valid, Jasmine, and I wholeheartedly sympathize with your standing because both you and I are rightfully fed up with the capitalist-fascist-Zionist-Masonic shitholes so crudely and cheaply pillaging humanity. At the same time, let's take a step back at least once in a while and consider what "freedom" is. Without boundaries and self-restraint, can there be freedom?
Can any young woman freely walk through an alley in the middle of the night if there is no societal restraint preventing men from devolving into Social Darwinist right-wing misogynistic savages holding no respect for feminine dignity?
Of course not. Which means moral restraint instilled upon the individual is a prerequisite for the freedom of all human beings in any society. Which means, in a world of sinful human beings, some form of basic governance is a necessity lest the entire collective of humanity long face extinction because they killed each other if not the outcome being whoever ascends to power is a far, far worse hyper-totalitarian dictator than the original Herodian rulers installed to instill societal order.
Am I saying this in defense of the present global regime? Of course not -- the modern state of reality is actually the product of ungodly rebellion inverting the natural hierarchy into a cesspool of Babylonian mystic/cabalistic perdition imposed at the cultural level of society. But anyhow, Jasmine, hopefully you find my analysis here at least worth pondering over if it's of value.
Women can't do that now. Women are one of the biggest victims of capitalism and state control. So yeah, it's fucking personal. The governments in red states are gleefully taking away women's right to bodily autonomy. The federal government is trying to outlaw birth control. Hierarchies are bad, mmmkay.
Hmm... if by "women's right to bodily autonomy" you're referring to what I assume, then notwithstanding my potentially different stance on the issue, I think I broadly see where you're coming from.
If it helps, try to keep in mind all mainstream "cultural norms" and common thinking patterns (both "left-wing" and "right-wing") concurrent to corporate-astroturfed ideological umbrellas and popular mass movements are part of a self-fulfilling prophecy ouroboros game operating out of a preplanned script. (of course, I receive the quickly slapped designation of "conspiracy theorist" for thinking about this too much, LOL)
For instance:
- when a mass shooting happens, don't fall into the liberal trap of instantaneously blaming gun owners and AR-15 manufacturers, but consider the possibility FBI/NSA overlords knew the shooting was going to happen and allowed it to happen on purpose
- when liberal/globalist propaganda pushes endless war against Russia in the name of "defending Ukraine," don't jump aboard the dualist train believing the issue is "Ukraine = good, Russia = bad," but consider whether the West intentionally *wanted* Russia to invade Ukraine (spoiler: as documented by The Dissident over here, there is indeed evidence the previous Vegetocratic Fuhrer administration of Biden, Nuland, and Blinken actively provoked Russian aggression against Ukraine: https://the307.substack.com/p/the-ukraine-negotiations-should-have)
- when Western right-wing Zionist scums begin lopsidedly and co-opting concerns of "Islamic extremism" to justify Islamophobic warmongering or domestic civil liberty violations, consider whether the CIA-MI6 intelligence masters had a hand consciously proliferating such episodes of Islamic extremism
Of course, I hope the last point out of three three already resonates with your observations? There is a very strong point I'm hoping to articulate with clarity here: it's generally of discernment-edifying value sometimes to take a step back sometimes and think about whether common stances on issues, especially very emotionally charged ones, are easily manipulable and herded into unconscious tools serving the clandestine world control reactionary ultraconservative elites.
Here's the thing about birth control and/or abortion, especially if the latter point is what you're referencing: both industries are run by the same corporatist/capitalist Morgan-Rockefeller overlords working in tandem with the MIC-Zionist fascist elites. Just as Zionism was never promoted for the actual betterment of Jewish people, neither is the abortion industry's cultural glamorization of abortion as "women's rights" actually about feminine empowerment. Their goal is to keep women single and separated away from familial love: dividing and conquering the family so women view children as a liability and husbands as domineering selfish masculists. Weak families --> morally weak society unable to resist systemic communal brainwash --> widespread fascist/controlled-opposition brainwash hoodwinking the youth into extremist and reactionary ideologies.
From what I've heard, Western feminist circles of the woke realm have recently drifted into a realm of "posthumanist" ideology. The cultural Western "far left" embodied in the woke-CRT-intersectional-"feminist" umbrella and the cultural Western "far right" manifested in Elon Musk's technocratic wing of crypto blowhards, toxic-masculine Andrew Tate-worshiping wannabe "alpha males," neofascist faux-"social conservatives," and neo-Nazis are two sides to the same coin: whether emphasized as "left-wing" neo-Marxist posthumanism or "right-wing" neofascist/neo-Nazi transhumanism, the end result is a neo-Babylonian cultural-Kabbalistic form of Shinar-Nimrod Gnostic spiritual rebellion assuming the ability to transcend beyond the "inferior" material human body. Simply put, both the "social liberal" and "social conservative" realms of the present-day Western mess are Gnostic cults without even realizing it.
Side note: sorry about taking a while to get back to you, Jasmine. -- this week has been a *slight* mess for me as all the previous months of my miserable existence has increasingly wallowed in. Anyhow, I hope my reply here is additional food for thought you find of possible value to think over for yourself a bit. I understand these feminine issues are presumably a sensitive topic for you, and please know I try to expound upon my own analysis of these "social issues" without provoking affrontation since I regard you as a decent and kind friend.
By women's rights I mean the unalien right to CONTROL MY OWN BODY. NOBODY SHOULD HAVE POWER OVER ANYONE. Let's say we come up with a law that ALL 18 year old men get a vasectomy until they're married and financially and emotionally stable enough to have children. That would certainly cut down on unwanted pregnancies. And we can talk about the French woman whose husband drugged her, raped her, and let other men rape her. Or we can talk about how 95% of violent crime is committed by men. The vast majority of people think abortion should be legal across the board because NOBODY WANTS THE GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL THEIR BODIES.
Too many suppositions, and not enough definitions to adequately come to conclusions.
Can you perhaps clarify where I made excessive suppositions?
What do you mean by “free speech absolutism”? What do you mean by “free speech”? How does the freedom of a Sovereign person as a “given” fit into the discussion?
When I put "free speech absolutism" in quotation marks, I'm referring to the one-dimensional mentality of commonplace modern political thought treating the free speech issue as total censorship and totalitarianism on one contrasted to (the false pretense of) "liberty," "total free expression," and utopian delights of free exchange on the opposite end where no speech is supposedly barred from public visibility and where *supposedly* there are no censors.
That treatment of the free speech issue as a one-dimensional spectrum is a false binary narrative designed to obfuscate the fact "unrestricted free speech" has at this point been channeled and manipulated into cesspools of intel-shaped controlled opposition narratives where absolute "free"-dom of expression is granted towards bots, corporate-owned squawk-boxes, CIA-MI6-Moshutzstaffelad assets, and gnostic empty talkers to be "free"-ly elevated by algorithmic adjustments as the proxy narrative controllers brainwashing the users of "absolutist free speech" platforms such as Substack into at the end of the day bootlicking for the same Anglo-MIC-Zionist-Maltese empire owning the censorship-imposing mass media platforms.
My article here implicitly divides the topic of free speech into two categories: authentic free speech that secures the freedom of individual conscience to freely express their humanity, and "free speech" (in quotation marks) as a fake narrative that has been hijacked and parasitically co-opted by controlled opposition assets for the empirical fascists who seek to reduce humanity into one unthinking pool of integrated machine components a.k.a. enslaved serfs.
> "How does the freedom of a Sovereign person as a 'given' fit into the discussion?"
Did you read the article, Don? I articulated in hopefully clear-enough terms the importance of people at the level of individual conscientious human beings exchanging dialogue of edifying value.
Damn. I couldn't have said it better. I've always had an issue with "free speech." The first amendment was meant to allow reporters and regular people the right to criticize the government without being disappeared. We know hateful speech is dangerous. Hatred is taught and Twitter, Facebook et al are soaked in it. Once again a "right" has been co-opted and used against us.
Glad to hear we largely agree on this part! Yes, precisely so: journalists and independent muckrakers should have the right to expose the truth without facing Arkancidal threats of forced disappearances.
On the issue of "hate speech," this is part of the subtle delineation implied in my broader analysis, and at least my perspective here is that it's split into the "public vs. private" issue: in a purely 100% public space, an individual should have the right to express whatever opinion, no matter how "extreme" it is so long as it's not direct incitement to violence against innocent individual people or ambiguously "collective" groups, because it's in a public space where people can just walk by and ignore so long as the speech remains part of peaceful civil dissent (if a random Holocaust denier wants to debate in civil terms exactly how many millions died in WWII, that's not the same thing as a band of FBI-deployed neo-Nazi goons screaming threats against minorities -- not that I'm saying this to defend Holocaust denial, obviously, just to point out the fundamental distinction between civil/peaceful speech and violence-inciting forms). However, privately owned and especially smaller-discussion spaces are a completely story, and 100% there should not be "unrestrained free speech" there because people committed to moral uprightness have a social responsibility to police and restrain ill-faith co-optation schemes.
Precisely.
You know."”””””” I don’t remember. I appreciate you expanding the scope of your thoughts. And I think your last comment sums it up. About …………Freedom and Sovereignty. These are not words……they mean freedom for freedoms sake but for only “he” …that knows he is free. And if you read on…..or maybe you have, then you know Emmanuel the deliverer of Freedom. Don
Can you... clarify what you mean? I'm not particularly following.
ok , but give me a few minutes.