Free speech

Serious questions for National Socialists.
What is your position on free speech-
1. -in the context of your life right now?
2. -in the context of your idealised vision for society?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/sle1E9QgHNE?list=PLwTOFUYVBGRsQbrocVX1n665f2Z7iKa-h
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Socialists

disgusting

ew why are aryan nazi women so fucking gross looking

imagine wanting one of those gross cave women

fucking nasty looking

...

Man commies really were animals

Nazis don't believe in free speech. I think they just believe in destruction, then once acheived, it would just morph into whatever else.

I know but I don't really mind once seeing how gross they looked. that's the so-called aryan race? gross

>as long as it does not harm the people, nation and culture
pretty much a national socialists viewpoint on most things.
if you dont like it fuck off

Free speech is over rated. The only manner of speech that should be protected is speech that states what is objectively truthful, meaning no one can call you a slander the truth as it has been proven true OR speech which is uttered in pursuit of the truth.

Any other speech, especially whimsical speculative speech leads to communism and left wing soft-apologariansism.

OP here. wasn't expecting this thread.. not even a natsoc

There is no question on free speech. It would be allowed just as much as it is now.
For example- National Socialism is banned in much of Europe and many corportations ban it from their media platforms.
As such we will ban them back when we get back in power. So the level of free speech will remain unchanged.

..and that's good??

Fuck, it's 6 am and I haven't slept and I switched gears in the middle of that post.

No one can slander the truth.
No one can call you out for speaking the truth.

IE. Abortionists claiming that life is only sacred when a woman "feels" it is, can not be objectively verified and therefore can never be fully true.
Saying life begins at conception can be argued as truth as cellular division and cellular respiration begins as soon as the process is started and the DNA is 100% unique and biologically diverse from both the mother and the father, ergo, even if it doesn't look like a baby, it is still a human life.


Saying that communism is bad is objectively true.

Therefore trying to speak on behalf of it shouldn't be protected as it's an outright lie which damages the State if the ideas were allowed to spread themselves or gain popularity.

>this is real logic someone is using

HAHAHAHAHAHA

NatSoc here.

>1 free speech right now must be protected to ensure that the secrets holding europeans back are shown to the masses

>2 restricted if it subverts NatSoc state values in anyway


HAIL VICTORY

Yes it's good.
Anything that promotes by it's nature a deviation from tribalist morality which empowers the individual to act against the interest of the State needs to be quashed immediately. It is a plague that spreads like a yeast infection if left untreated.
Communism brings cosmopolitan ideals, feminism, social justice and compels people to stray from God.
All of which destroys the roots of society and sparks a divide and conquerism in the Nation between it's own people.

The goal is not individual liberty and other degeneracy but the preservation and strengthening of race and nation.
Life and existence is a war. Men are soldiers when they become men until their death.

Soldiers give up their individual liberty and associated * ideals * when they enter an army, war- for their nation.

The idea that a majority portion are simply " civilians " and no longer adherent to the responsibilities beholden to a soldier is degeneracy and weak.

youtu.be/sle1E9QgHNE?list=PLwTOFUYVBGRsQbrocVX1n665f2Z7iKa-h

>Saying that communism is bad is objectively true.
Do you mean unconditionally bad, or bad in some respects? wouldn't the same go for other political schemas?

what film?

You clearly have strong convictions. I am no expert, but natsoc seems to have as a tenet the goal of identifying and eliminating those that do not belong in the state. Outsiders, undermen. A question for you, what if the criteria are such that you become unsuitable? Say, you are not light enough, or too short, or not focused enough, you have allergies etc. Would you not be worried? Should you not be worried? Or would you be entirely accepting?

In this age of nuclear arms there doesn't need to be a worry that such a nation becomes conquerors and begins eliminating foreigners in their own homelands.
We will do what we will do for our people in our own borders as is our right or any peoples rights.

And if I were to imagine myself in such a situation where I was compromised in some manner then I would still fight up and to that point as any soldier would sacrifice themselves for the greater cause of their people and nation.

No marxism/degeneracy, that's it, you can shit post about how the government is shit and all that.

>light, short, focused
>implying

They were never a problem in NatSoc Germany from what I know, why would you think those petty attributes would become a problem when a new NatSoc state is reinstated? This type of thinking, in my honest opinion, is ridiculous, taking fascist "eugenics" to its furthest extreme to deny it's beneficial attributes in the more moderate aspect is a self imposed barrier that weak people use to justify their lack of motivation to learn more

>should you be worried

No. If I a NatSoc state represented it's people virtuously then I would have no problems complying with the states request as it would be in the benefit and not just a select (((few)))

unconditionally bad. Communism gave birth to feminism as we know it today, gave birth to egalitarianism which has caused nothing but problems, communism drove Christians from the Churches and as a consequence, every deviant act which we complain about here was made possible.
Even if you are not religious, trying to erode the importance that religion plays in society is a dangerous game and we're seeing the fruits of that now in but a few decades.

Dog blowjobs are legal in this country because without God there can be no arbiter of right and wrong to the common people

I am a white nationalist.
I don't really care a lot about the fouvermeng systhem if it usn't communism.
It doesn't have to be autoritarian

1. good
2. good (but absurd views like pitbulls are good dogs, vaxines cause autism, and gmo's are bad for example would be prevented from becoming popular views)

WE DONT HAVE FREE SPEECH NOW under liberalism, so why should we have free speech under any other system?

try calling someone a nigger at work

pretty much, doesn't matter, NSDAP was only possible by the stock at the time with the undeniably dedicated Hitler to the cause who led Germany and built it up, but authoritarian states without a perfect leader are impossible and whatever.

A constitution would have to be drawn up near the end of Hitlers ability to lead in which that piece of paper dictates the nation and paper into the future similar to how the U.S is run.

Goring and Hess were all servants of Germany and bound by party expectations/peoples expectations, they all fought in the putsch and risked their lives for Germany thus were good successors and were Hitler's successors, in Hitlers lifetime he could mold Germany so autonomous in the path that he would be unnecessary in its leadership.

Yeah I believe that people will be Nationalists for the rest of their lifes and teach ig to their kids because it will bring peace and low criminality.
No need to male propaganda
We got redpilled with free speech, other people should have this oppotunity

Perhaps

But look at how many are not of the path and how much garbage spews from the Jewish media, this is why an authoritarian state was built in Germany, to authoritarian tell the Jews that you can not do bullshit here nor spew propaganda from the presses.

If we kick the jews out to israel and the US stops helping them with thr military they have less than a year before the arabs eradicate them.
These people are natural enemies and we are used to hold the arabs back.

it is difficult to balance free speech and authoritarianism/nationalism

when people talk of "free speech" today, they invariably invoke it like some kind of sacred defense.
but what they use it to defend is typically drug taking, subversive politics and degeneracy.
we have gays and pedophiles openly promoting their twisted ways of life, people on VICE peddling drugs and gang lifestyles specifically to kids.

but without free speech we would risk becoming insular, and it would quickly become counter-productive.
that nibbling at the edges is to some extent what world-proofs national socialism, any political system that rejects hostile input ends up redundant and what is more we risk catching too many of our own people in the crossfire

Ideally I would see open exchange of ideas INTERNALLY, so politicians and academics could go about their business without fear.
but I would put an almost total ban on mass media, preaching and prothletism.
having sensitive debates internally ensures radical lies and hostile media never reach the population, and this fosters national unity

not a film. photos

By internally, do you mean within the state? Or within the elites/superiors, privately?

Do you think a white nation state (exept the ex communist ones) would have a lot of this?
Weed was legal in Austria since 1945 because they forgot to make it illegal.
Now that the Muslims arrived it's illegal because they abused the freedom.

They changed the law in germany so they can pursue everyone who say something they dont like.

If someone talks on a protest to the people he gets immediately arrested.

My vision of free speech is, everything is allowed, however if you molest people or threaten them directly there should be consequences and you will be goofed.

both in varying ways

political issues should be worked out by politicians, stakeholders, scientists etc
that way we see an end to these dabates where a serious and technical issue spills into the public arena, is reduced to bare bones for people to understand, the truth becomes manipulated and SA has a brown out because hippies thought they didn't understand the science of wind turbines
no, much better a few clever people speak for a long time in private than some jew pulling out a megaphone and trying to end policy debate in a weekend

you will also notice almost immediately what we hear from other countries is for their benefit, not ours
internally america discusses it's buisiness, but when we hear american speakers they come to further their own goals
they do not represent american views, or care about australian interest
basically foreign voices are almost guarantee to be shills
the ABC's internal report on Q&A made strong note that US speakers were usually from the left fringe and were discredited back home

marijuana was legal because many politicians were simply unaware of it's impact and prevalence
on social issues the elites often only notice something coming when it's already here

marajuana use is not nearly as a common in australia as in other countries; and I've traveled all over
our cannabis is weak, and many who do smoke don't do so habitually as a result
unlike california for instance, were users tend to be heavy smokers

Nah, people knew about the bad impact in this specific case.
They named afgan drug dealers as the reason for the new law. These people were in the subway of Wien sold drugs and attacked old people when they complained and mugged them.

It's just like policemen.
The police had to take the military jeeps to be able to deal with the new menace.
It used to be peaceful here and not verry autoritarian.
Now it is becomming more and more autoritarian and violent.

Don't get me wronc I would rather live under an autoritarian regime than in Brazil or other multiethnic societies.
If autoritarian leadership is the only way I'll roll with it.

sup leah

yeah because the yanks are so much more attractive

looks like a fucking human pile of mash potato

>if you molest or threaten them directly

And in come the loopholes. - there is only one way free speech can really work: you can say everything you want.

but that's a stupid idea. yes. free speech is a stupid idea. just like freedom in general.

Free speech is fine so long as it doesn't threaten the stability of the state

well that is true, but honestly the hardening of criminals in the drug trade was in my view inevitable

foreigners brought it, and nothing absolves them from doing that
but honestly given enough time our local drug trade would have become violent as well

we've got the triad and the calabrian mafia bringing in hard drugs
asian syndicates and bikies importing weed, and growing it
south american warlords and australian celebrities bringing coke in by the boatload

while it would be convenient, despite the genesis not coming from Australians I think we would have ended in the same place
drug pries here are so high, coke on the street is hundreds of AU dollars a gram, shitty weed is 14-20 a gram

returning to the issue, free speech is being used to shield drug users from the damage they do supporting hard criminals
like many americans, I believe it is not a "victim-less crime" because it funds warlords overseas, crime syndicates domestically and lunatics locally

You could replace free speech with the right to question, criticise and to hate

we wuz nazis and sheeet. we wuz kangs

Nationalism could have prevented it :^)

It should be the first ammendment of any nationalist socialist constitution.

it could have delayed it certainly, but australia is a new nation and back then patriotism was in short supply

we have no excuse for lacking patriotism today

>And in come the loopholes. - there is only one way free speech can really work: you can say everything you want.

If think more about this, threatening someone should maybe legal too. Seriously, else it could be used again to shut everyone up.
So everything should be free speech, Im sick that I am not allowed to call a whore whore.

But if someone announce that he is going to kill somebody, he should get observed somehow.

sure. but most people shouldn't have the right to any of those. mostly because they are stupid. the freedom to ask questions for example makes some people think their opinion is worth something and that they are intellectuals. when actually they are not. just keep the plebs down. they don't deserve better.

It's wrong to view "rights" under the lens of modern liberal "democracy".

A fascist society doesn't need "free speech" When people are united under a leader and strive towards the same goal "free speech" is just an avenue for enemies to subvert and agitate.

As for now protection of radical political speech is important so we can propagate our ideas. But ultimately I don't want jews or commies or negroes etc to have free speech.

Yeah maybe you are right.
Some personal rights should be restricted to have a peaceful society, but free speech should not be restricted.

There should be feedback systems that ensures that the leadership can be put under scrutiny. Leadership should be afraid to argue for its legitimacy at all.

There will be attempts at subversion, of course. But they should be attacked on other grounds, not on what they say.

You're right, the proles have no place questioning the government, but it might be accepted better (temporarily) in evrope

I wouldn't have unlimited free speech if I was king, but certainly more than we have now.

Think about it, because of hate speech laws (in Europe), it's illegal to criticise immigration for biological reasons and not just cultural. And the biological reasons are plenty, for example, you can't expect a race with an average IQ to thrive in a society that's built and maintained by 100 IQ.

So right now, it's illegal to criticise the reason for the downfall of civilisation.

>Leadership shouldn't be afraid to argue for its legitimacy at all.

You know there is ids on this board

average IQ of 85*

he was correcting a typo lol

Those mechanisms already exist in any hierarchical system. You don't need muh freedumbs in the perverse americanised modern sense to keep leadership in check.

I was correcting a typo, sorry it wasn't obvious

Singapore doesnt allow public protests, and nobody seems to mind.
(No muslim riots either :D )

A state needs to actively protect and spread the ideas that founded it. What this means is that it needs to advocate its ideas and avoid helping the spread of others.
So for instance.
1. No public protests
2. People can privately meet and dicsuss things (this is hard to ban anyway)
3. Ideological criteria for funding. For instance a college might only recieve govt. funding if it has no marxisim based classes.
4. A state would advocate its founding ideas, but allow others as long as they dont cause problems.
(Unlike now where all ideas are considered equal)

well see I don't think it needs to be all or nothing

liberals use "free speech" to try and take their actions out of context

there are some instances when people should be prohibited from speaking freely, any are recognized by law already
>when they are lying or slandering someone
>when they are trying to cause panic
>when they are acting as agents of a foreign power
etc etc

we can stop these kinds of things, and still keep open debate when the context is productive

this anarchist dichotomy is false, the people who want to hurt us are trying to hide among ordinary people peddling the line that the state is after everyone

Hierarchy is top down controlled. Feedback means that there is a loop back up. If it truly is a hierarchy, then if the top is compromised, then the whole system is.

> Commies and Nazis both kills degenerates
> Commies are such disgusting animals

The eternal Anglo strikes

actually - i don't really agree with myself. there are good arguments for both sides. just wanted to show that you will never have 100% free speech or 100% control over your people. it is always a matter of agreement and what people are willing to sacrifice for safety and a healthy community. i myself don't struggle with free speech in terms of NatSoc - but with freedom of art. since they burned a lot of books i very much liked from an artists perspective. Anyway i agree with NatSoc overall and i think the benefits will outweigh the sacrifices especially in long terms.

Yes. Observation or social consequences for threats are fine with me. Also i think we should allow duels again. so you can defend yourself and your honor if someone uses his free speech. duels are an perfect example of societal measures to counter the more aggressive forms of free speech. you think twice if someone can challenge you for a duel to death if you chose the wrong words.

>asks a serious question
>people berate women from the 40s
Yeah welcome to Sup Forums

I agree, there are things that are restricted like threatening people with violence doxxing etc.
But I don't belive in the whole "hate speech" bullshit.

Free speech anywhere but in the US is easily understood.

Everything I like is free speech, everything I don't is hate speech and illegal.

In the us they tried making hate speech legal, but that experiment is coming to an end fast

They only burned a very few and actually degenerate books, it's one of those (((truths))) about nazi Germany

you just contradicted yourself you absolute fucking idiot. if you want to control what people THINK that's the complete opposite spectrum from free speech.
seriously all you fucking leafs, you can't all be THIS stupid for no goddamn reason. get some bloodwork done, you might have some vitamin deficiencies or something. FUCK.

>assuming i'm here for white girls

look at my flag

> free speech
> It's OK to be a fucking retard because of Freedom, and you can't stop me.

>muh freedumbs OOGA BOOGA

Muricans are too brainwashed with this crap to talk seriously about this issue.

you only exist because of black people

No. they burned Erich Kästner for example. and i don't understand why. Maybe because he was more of an individualist. also Thomas Mann. Der Zauberberg is just awesome. but i can see why they burned his books. he fled germany and spew allied propaganda thru the radio. also he was anti-hitler from the start. and Tod in Venedig is about Pedo-love and he was a closet gay. but come on, Erich Kästner - really?

It wasn't good, but it wasn't as awful as it is made out to be by (((they)))

agreed. we have a deal.

How's life in Merkel caliphate kraut

bad. but honestly. Germans have their worst days behind them. our culture was already gone. our nation was already gone. our pride was already gone. our education was already gone. et cetera. the most important part is to make sure that the same doesn't happen to your people. and the white cultures that still have a beating heart.

Why are you still there

because the allies were pathetic fools. not man enough to genocide us completely. or maybe they were just cruel and killed Germany to make us suffer in its graveyard for decades to come while the last of us are slowly dying. maybe that's the Jewish version of revenge. to tell us that niggers brought america to the moon and that Wernher von Braun was an unimportant spectator. to turn around everything we stood for and to shove it up our faces. or maybe that's just nature - despotism of the victor. whatever. we will most likely never know. but that's why i'm still here. i love the dust of my forefathers bones.

and ofc i still have hope. haha.

...