A while back I decided to put the idea of the “freedom of speech and expression” to the test. Sadly, as with most popular misconceptions, it is a rare commodity. In my own sphere, I soon discovered that this “freedom” involves the full acceptance of all current stupidities, while to do otherwise leaves you open to derision.
My problems started, when during a coffee-time discussion about the French involvement in the destruction of Libya, an affable young lad suggested that these sort of problems could be better solved through the medium of love.
In all innocence I asked him to explain what he meant. The silence which fell over the group was palpable but in my new incarnation of upholder of the “Rights of Man” I pressed on.
I asked him if he felt uncomfortable with my question and if yes, was I now under an attack of love and if so, how was he doing it. I could sense that most of the other folk at the table were in support of the sentiments of this fable of love. They were part of a group of people who hold to the idea of love conquering all, while at the same time they can offer no convincing explanation as to why they are mostly divorced.
For some time after, most of the group, including the “love man” refused to speak to me, such is love. This all changed for a short period when a young girl had her bag and wallet stolen putting her into a bit of a hole. I made a spontaneous collection for her, to help her out, which, awkwardly, reinstated me into every bodies good books, but only for a short period.
My next transgression was on the day when there was a marriage in the Town Hall. I noticed that the guests, who were gathering outside, included a large number, whom though they looked like women, were in fact dressed like men.
I asked a fellow, whom I have known for years, if this was a Gay Wedding? He immediately called me a Fascist. I asked him what he meant. His response absolutely floored me. He suggested that I should not have even noticed that there was any difference between the Gay couple who were getting married and any heterosexual couple.
That was more than enough for me, as far as I was concerned that sort of stupidity qualified him as a verifiable cretin. I asked him how that made me a Fascist? He started to mumble something about Hitler’s hatred of homosexuals, so I asked him what a hatred of homosexuals had to do with being a Fascist?
I have noticed for some time that the actual meaning of Fascism has long been swamped out of existence and has been misrepresented as being a form of oppression, favoured, of course, by cruel Dictators.
I made a remark along the lines of, most of the crimes which have been laid at the door of Hitler, have never been proven. I asked him if he could point me towards a piece of evidence of Hitler’s attacks against homosexuals. Apparently, like love, it is all around us and like love it can ever be produced in support of claims which are continually made of it.
The fellow started to tell me that there was all the evidence of the Shoah, in support of what he was suggesting. When I pointed out that most of the evidence of the Shoah was so insecure, that in the end it could not have been the truth as all of the claims which were made in the past, have had to be revised. There is no need to revise the truth.
At which point, he warned me that if I continued in this manner, denying the Shoah, he would not be speaking to me again. When I put it to him that if I was obliged to believe something, was it not up to him to show me proof of the actuality of the event, in which I was meant to believe, otherwise it was no more than a religion and was he suggesting that I was not allowed to choose my own beliefs?
That was the end of the conversation and to this day, not one word has passed between us.
So where are we now? Love, Gay Marriage and the holocaust, that leaves us with that other hot potato, immigration.
Just a few days ago, yet another long time “friend” became agitated when I asked her opinion about the current level of immigration.
Her response was that there was no problem with immigration. When I asked her to explain to me the point at which it would become necessary to say that France was full, just like all of the other “really nice people” who can see no problem with the huge influx of immigrants into France, she was afraid to commit herself to any limit on immigration, when common sense suggests that there must be some limit, France cannot accept six or seven billion people.
At which point it becomes clear that most people fail to see the difference between economic immigrants and refugees or asylum seekers, intent on escaping the threat of torture or death in their homeland.
I asked her what was supposed to happen to the million or more young Muslim lads, living in the Banlieue de Paris whom had never been able to find a job. She had no answer. I asked her if she was happy about Paris being already more than fifty per-cent immigrant. She responded saying that all of the bigger cities in France were the same, but that was no problem.
When I suggested that immigrants were more likely than the French to have large families, she became aggressive with me, calling me racist and all the other insults, because the notion of immigrants having large families was a lie which was being put about by the Front Nationale.
When I suggested that most statistics showed that immigrants were having at least twice as many babies as were the French she was disgusted with the suggestion.
I told her that Irish people are renowned for their large families and that I have never heard of anybody suggesting that it was Racist or Fascist or anything else to suggest that this was the case, so why was there a problem to suggest that others might be the same?
I put it to her that she appeared to be saying that nobody had the right to question mass immigration and that when groups like Ukip in the UK or the Front Nationale in France stood up and said that enough is enough, they were going to be smeared and denigrated and anyone who agreed with them would be ostracised. At which point she said that if I continued along those lines she would not be speaking to me again.
The fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom and France should be prepared to accept whomsoever is trying to escape from Mali, Central Africa, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan and wherever else, as they are responsible for the destruction of those countries and the creation of millions of refugees. So why should Europe decide that every country in Europe should take their share why not send them all to the UK and France?
Ireland has never invaded any country nor have the Irish people been responsible for world war-fare so why is Ireland under threat from a problem created by the British, French Americans and Israel?
It may have always been the same and it could be that in the past I have simply not noticed, but there are dozens of references made to the crimes of Hitler on a daily basis. Just yesterday I was confronted with my latest “free speech” issue. I was not even involved in the conversation which provoked it, I just happened to be standing near-by.
A fellow was babbling about the atrocities of Hitler and the Germans and I quietly asked him why it was that folk were forever attacking Hitler and yet they never said a word about Stalin, whom had slaughtered 65 million Christians. The man stiffened and I could see that he was going to have no sympathy for my remark.
For once I managed to keep my mouth shut, mainly because the man was a good sort and it was clear that he had a limited understanding of what had happened during the war.
So shamefully, it becomes clear that when the Jew François Hollande, is suggesting that to criticise Jews should be illegal, nobody is going to give a damn, any more than they will when the Jew Cameron makes Conspiracy Investigation illegal.
So what sort of Free Speech are we left with? What sort of Freedom and Human Rights are the immigrants in Ireland demanding? Are there Human Rights for Immigrants which are denied to the rest of us? Why are our governments, behind our backs, bringing in large numbers of immigrants in the first place.
My last point, I asked the woman who was in favour of Immigration, what she thought about the genocide against Whites in South Africa? Like many others, she felt that they had brought on themselves through their past actions.
When I suggested to her that the Boers had in fact been in South Africa before the Blacks, which had been a large empty space when they arrived three hundred or so years ago and that the Black were immigrants, looking for work.
She scoffed saying that it was ridiculous to suggest that Whites had been there before the Blacks. I refuted that claim, saying that Africa was a huge continent and most of the people were hunter gatherers of one form or another. leaving the vast prairies free for farming, for which the Boers used it.
I asked her if she felt that it was OK to call Africa a Black Mans Continent and if so what was Europe? Plus how she felt about the brutal attacks against BLACK asylum seekers in South Africa by the Rainbow People.
Did she agree with Israel expelling the Black Jew “infiltrators” into Israel and the lack of immigration into States which were not of European origin?
Nobody can answer these sort of questions because to do so would display the crass stupidity of their stance. So I think that in reality there is no such animal as true Freedom of Speech and when you have numb-heads telling me that it is racist to be able to distinguish Black from White and Male from Female it becomes clear that when even relatively intelligent people fail to understand how it should apply to the beliefs of others, things will get no better.