How Can We Make Free Speech Work In Our Favour?

Practical application of Free Speech in the Dissident Right and Neo-Progressive Right Wing Discourse.

This text was originally written at around the time when Kanye West or “Ye” was banned from Twitter for inciting antisemitism. But at that time I decided against publishing this in a video format, even though the original script for it was already recorded and the thumbnail for it was already made 👇

A couple of days back, I made the choice to release it exclusively on Substack. However, during the process, I had to delete approximately 70% of the initial script and incorporate an additional 70% of brand new content. For your own purposes I will let you know that this article is divided into two sections. The first section delves into my thought process, while the second section addresses the question posed by the post's title to the reader. So if you wish to skip my weird thought pattern go straight to the second part!

PS: If you have an interest in comprehending the theory behind free speech, I highly recommend watching my video dedicated to this subject. Unlike the linked video, this article will primarily focus on practical applications and real-life examples, providing a grounded perspective.

---

PART I

I will skip the context of what happened because I feel like if you are reading my Substack, you know exactly why Ye was banned from Twitter. Nevertheless, it is important for you to grasp that the ultimate decision to implement the ban took place following Ye's tweet featuring the following image:

This is a depiction of Swastika inside the Star of David, likely alluding to his earlier statements that he [loves Jewish people, but that he also loves Nazis]. If that were to be contrasted with his earlier tweets of “Death con 3”, public appearances and overall statements towards Jews, the banning decision over this particular image sounds a little arbitrary.

John Stuart Mill who has been often cited as the defender of freedom of speech, was doing so for the people in general, but not the people that he disliked. He liked all people but certain people he liked especially. Thus he more or less advocated for freedoms for people of his social tribe, which is similar to how people like Nick Fuentes view freedom.

In any event, on 90^th page of the book On Liberty he made the case that free speech should be censored if it happens to violate good manners or public decency defined in the most vaguest manner. What does that mean? It could mean no alcohol and no sex on public but it could also mean that in Russia if you fly an LGBTQ flag or in America if you burn it you should be deplatformed. Essentially he argued that free-speech exists inside a contextual relationship between one’s culture’s idea of good manners or decency. So, according to John Stuart Mill Ye’s account could rightfully be censored if our culture understands it as a violation of decency or good manners. At the same time, had we lived in Nazi Germany, his account would likely have been boosted. Here’s a small clip from one of my videos where Walter Lippmann is critiquing Mill for his inconsistencies:

We censor ideas only if we care about them. Do you massively care about publics sexual morality? Well in that case you will be more inclined to monitor sexual behaviour that you dislike. If your country was invaded by communism or it is fighting a war that is waged by the successor of the USSR you will be more inclined towards censoring anything that is positive of communism or it’s state successor like is now happening to pro-Russian propagandists in Eastern Europe. If you don’t really care about it, and it’s not your thing - you won’t. In my personal experience I found it to be quite easy to explain the issues that Right Wing Dissidents face here in the West to the people living outside it, while I bet if I were to be talking about the treatment of Russian dissidents and pro-Ukrainians inside of Russia or Palestinians in Israel, I would be met with a harsher reaction from Israeli Jews and Russians, because they actually care about it. It is considered to be a contentious topic.

In the passage below I made an argument that people only censor things that they care about, while the things that they either don’t care about, dismissive of, poorly informed on or simply in agreement with they do not oppose. It has a lot of weird jokes as it was intended for a video, so I won’t be including it in to the text, but I’ll leave you with an image that you can read to help you understand a minor point that I was making.

Thus, the reason that the media and the public at large were so censorious of the Covid mandates pushback and election denial claims is because they were a contentious topic, but the moment it stopped being on the agenda, the restrictions were lifted and now people on major platforms can finally deny the 2020 election results without being subjected to censorship.

Usually the people who argue for censorship are doing it based off the harm principle, that is, “we need to censor people like Matt Walsh because he contributes to trans genocide”, or “the unvaccinated are causing public health concern, therefore we should take away their rights of using public services”, (a sentiment with which over 60% of Canadians in 2022 agreed with). However this form of censorship, is not done on the harm principle even though intuitively it appears to be this way. Our public and institutions simply do not go for HIV dissidents and alternative medicine even-though they are proven to cause way more harm than the people who actually get censored. Fake pseudo history channels get a free reign on YouTube as they receive millions of views yet nobody is targeting them for disinformation. At the same time non-mainstream perspectives on historical events of the last five centuries aren’t met with the same generosity.

This brings me to the point, that despite censorship is being justified (at least by our elites) on the harm principle, in practice, it looks to be done on purity and friend-enemy-distinction principle. At the end of the day, if you go back in history and look at how censorship was conducted before the current year, it was almost exclusively done on purity and friend-enemy-distinctions, including censoring the criticism of the dominant social order and glorification of the enemy nation. People view advancing an opposing political idea through the lens of a tribal infighting.

About a week ago in the time when the first draft of this script was written, Balenciaga – one of the leading fashion houses in the world issued an art exhibition by Garieble Galimberti titled “Toy Stories” which arguably was an exhibition of children in BDSM gear for P word normalization and outrage purposes. It produced a massive stir and the company had a freak-out that was reminiscent of the 2020 freakout about BLM and Covid. It also arguably was the first cancel campaign started by the right before they have taken on giants like BudLight and Target. The grounds for cancelling and censorship in this case were in rhetoric also based on the harm principle (think of the children!), but being inspected more closely they were effectively done on purity and friend-enemy-distinction grounds with a small dose of shaming.

---

PART II

In this section, you will be acquainted with six strategies that will help us to exploit the public infrastructure for the sake of promoting broader Right Wing thought and the dissemination of Neo-Progressive ideology within the marketplace of ideas.

Mastering The Rules:

Before joining any space or winning a game, one must know the rules. Without being properly acquainted with how censorship works and how to avoid it, one risks to become a target of censorship. It is especially saddening when a person of large following is censored because that following will often find itself to be in the hands of another influencer which tends to be more moderate and obedient to the system which still allows them to operate within.

Thankfully not all social systems are structured around the same censorship models, and whereas on places like Facebook you can barely say anything, some places like Twitter provide a much wider scope of allowed speech. Furthermore, unlike Facebook, Twitter is openly committed to the ideas of free speech, and consequently it could be socially pressured to actually follow its own moto. You cannot demand from Facebook or Instagram something which it had never promised to deliver, but you certainly can do that to Twitter and finally get Jared Taylor back on the platform.

Groups like the ADL, HOPE Not Hate and SPLC use a similar strategy, but not towards increasing the scope of what’s allowed to say. They have been able to censor information online by going to a company and demanding that it operates by its own rules of “standing against to hate speech” or as we understand it in practice suspending and banning right wing thought from the platform.

However much of the advice rests upon understanding the current scopes of what’s allowed to be said, Twitter doesn’t seem eager to unban certain demographics of the Dissident Right, and as you will soon know this rests upon an important feed-back loop that we can exploit to our favour.

Bipartisanship

Bipartisan ideas refer to those that can garner agreement from both political parties. In practice, this implies that such ideas are not actively opposed by either your friend or enemy group, and therefore, they are not perceived as contentious. Consequently, people's tribal instincts are less likely to come into play when considering these ideas.

A good strategy in exploiting bipartisanship could be on the issue of free speech. Even though, only one side of the debate is being targeted for it in academia, our institutions and popular culture, strangely enough 86% of Americans believe that self-censorship is problematic, while the current political climate puts the current censorship rate at triple the rate of that during the McCarthy era.

One can also say that our society has gone so much leftward, that even people who are far left begin to feel that they feel afraid to share their opinions on public from those even more leftist than them, however many leftists live under the illusion that censorship impacts both parties equally. Some leftists, think that “intolerant right wingers” are doing book burnings, and we are one step away from establishing a White supremacist fascist state. In other words, they perceive the right to be at least 5 times more powerful than we actually are. Instead of lamenting this and getting angry over it, we can exploit it, whereby we could advocate for academic freedom for everybody, however in practice that will only provide us with more political variety and ammunition. At the same time, the left should see that restoring free-speech is mutually beneficial for both parties and no party will gain from it disproportionately.

Another advice that is somewhat similar to partisanship, is employing public opinion which tilts in our direction, as opposed to elite support for a particular policy (basically how the media structures any given policy discussion). For instance, the polls show that over 61% of Frenchmen think that Whites are being replaced inside their own country and close to a 70% are worried about it. Obviously, this number differs from the number that can be observed among the French elites which motivates them to censor the French populace that is bringing it up, however in a democracy every vote is symbolically equal and consequently by showing that a majority of the population supports or opposes a said policy like the 74% of Americans opposing affirmative action, that could have significant psychological effects upon either adopting a said policy or not censoring discussion around it in the first place. Large percentages give a feeling of bi-partisanship and hopelessness among those who find themselves in a minority. For years this tactic has been used against us, but it’s time to take it back.

Universal Principle > Particular Application

Perhaps the saddest and most hypocritical thing about free speech is that it is guaranteed by every Western country in the world, yet all of these countries still engage in censorship campaigns against their own citizens. That is because they claim to value free speech but as soon as something they care about comes up, they will censor it. Frankly, in my 23 year existence on this planet, I have not met a single individual that was a true freedom absolutist.

The next Musk Twitter takeover event is best proof of this whereby 72% of Twitter users have voted to amnesty every single Twitter account which was suspended under the previous administration yet just yet 51% of them voted to see Trump (a particular example) to be reinstated on Twitter. That is to say, just like 100% modern universities they support free speech in theory, but will expel you if you violate their purity code in practice. At the same time, this story also falls under the “Bipartisanship” category, because many leftists who have voted for the general amnesty imagined that many of their fellow leftists were also punished by Twitter and so this decision is a bi-partisan win (😁). Funny enough, if Twitter was actually to follow up with the general amnesty, people who are much to the right of Trump would be on the platform in greater numbers than they are today, a decision that likely only a quarter of Musk’s fans would approve of. However, if asked correctly about 3/4 of them would. This is why, making things appear as bi-partisan (when they are not) is incredibly important for our side.

In any event, the refusal to apply a universalist principle to a particular case study creates a feeling of a cognitive dissonance among the censors who have a minimum degree of self awareness. So companies, universities and media platforms could still be pressured to respect free expression of opinions which they disagree with. And if they still aren’t willing to respect people’s constitutional rights then there are always lawsuits and boycotts that work.

Overton Window, Tolerance Window

The current rules for what is allowed to be said is theoretically determined by the so-called Overton Window (it actually doesn’t), where supposedly small minority and extreme opinions on both sides never become the topic of a national discussion, but the window of acceptable speech may shift left or right over time. Below is my illustration of that:

In my perspective, I believe that acceptable discourse is influenced by the opinions of the elite as well as the local rules of engagement and not the general population as opposed to how it is imagined by the proponents of the Overtone Window and there is evidence of that. But I like notion that the Overtone Window implicitly limits the range of acceptable opinions through excluding extreme participants from participating in the discussion.

As alternative to the Overton Window, I propose the “Tolerance-Window”, that is, only people who are willing to respect the rights of others to engage in a discussion of any kind should be permitted to engage. Karl Popper referred to this as the Paradox of Tolerance whereas in an effort of maintaining a tolerant society, one must be intolerant to the intolerant. However the power balance since Karl Popper has shifted significantly from authoritarian Right Wingers so in practice it means, shutting down people like Vaush and firing “Woke” academics from their positions for being unwilling to respect the rights of others to participate in a free discussion. In such an environment many leftist organizations and public opinion leaders will find themselves on the receiving end of the stick until they stop advocating for deplatforming speakers they disagree with.

The following strategy can also work as a way to neutralize the Overtone Window entirely, whereas one can cite a very problematic opinion such as an expert survey on intelligence made out of people who have published 94 papers on average and 87% of whom hold a PhD concluding that the White-Black IQ gap is largely biological and a censor won’t able to do anything in response under the “Tolerance Window” framework as the following research or the person citing it makes no prescriptions about tolerance. It is a simple statistical fact which may send a lot of people into a state of rage, but in a “Tolerance Window” framework won’t be able to stop the proliferation of said fact inside a public space.

Obviously such a framework is able to shoot back at the illiberal elements that also exist on the right, however I maintain that there won’t be any mourning for them, because people who attempt to illuminate feed-back loops which allow a society to stay dynamic and course correct aren’t even needed in our spaces in the first place.

Use duh Government

Finally, Conservatives have been hesitant to use the government force in order to achieve their goals. Instead they relied on the people themselves, who unfortunately do not have enough power or motivation to regulate entire companies with their wallets or through social pressure. Thankfully after many many hard slaps by reality, advocates for free speech began to realize that a libertarian model of free speech is doomed to fail in modern realities and consequently governmental intervention is the answer. In other words much like the EU and other authoritarian governments are trying to police Twitter for not censoring enough of politically inconvenient information, tech platforms and universities should become subjected to fines FOR censoring politically inconvenient information. Furthermore, we aren’t able to vote for the head of Google or make up 90% of its employees to change its policies from within, but we surely are able to influence it from outside using the power of our government and pressure them towards making sure Google respects free speech as it used to 10 years ago.

Practical examples show how leftist anti-meritocratic and anti-free speech institutions are removed via governmental intervention, and as people with a working feedback loop mechanisms, we should support what is known to be working.

Free Speech Is A Value That Works In Our Interests

In case it wasn’t clear before, free-speech is a massive win for our side, not only because only WE are getting censored in this political climate, but also because it is the moral thing to do. A right side of history if you will. However that requires actual free-speech commitment. Although we should understand the friend-enemy-distinction we should certainly not be blind by it, but we have to overcome it and use it for our advantage.

We should never feel threatened or willing to censor something which goes against our collective interests or personal beliefs. We therefore should reject the “America First” idea of free-speech and all other fancy fascy power reversal fantasies that are often flying around among the ranks of the Dissident Right. There is also a personal gain to be had from it. Let’s face it, barely any of us are in power to decide who will be allowed to express themselves and instead most to all centers of power are being controlled by the left. Consequently, freedom of speech is needed to critique those in power. A commitment to freedom of speech fosters a sense of trust among those who benefit from it, assuring that in the event of a power change, the new ruling class will respect the rights of the previous one and maintain an open feedback loop. That is why opposing parties in a healthy democracy always trust the election results when the other party wins.

The fact that some other people may say something I happen to disagree with bothers me less than my own ability to say something which goes against the dominant view and get away with it. That is to say, you should support free speech not only because you’re on the victimized side of the debate, but also because it will give you an opportunity to grow yourself out of it. Then when you have grown too powerful to determine what is public decency, public decency would begin to work in your favour but while you’re small and marginalized, opposing something which will give you working rights is a bad strategy. In fact, if you believe in free speech for me but not for thee, assuming you are not in control it would be used to justify further marginalization of you and your side.

---

Thanks for coming to my Ted-Talk. I know this “essay” is not as organized as it should have been, but I am just getting started with Substack and I do have plans to stay here for much longer, as the air here is much freer than it is on YouTube (or Twitter!). Below are some of the things I’m working on. Two of them will soon premier on YouTube, while the other two are Substack exclusive, so you better follow me here by clicking on one of the buttons bellow!