LAW: TWO PLUS TWO IS FOUR | nationalsalvation.net
"Freedom is the right to say two plus two is four." That is the famous conclusion of George Orwell in 1984. At two widely separated times, two different high Japanese leaders made the mistake of pointing gout that Mexican immigration lowered the average IQ of the United States.
You can imagine the whirlwind they reaped by that Hitlerian statement. Each one was newly astonished:
1) The Average Mexican IQ is lower than the average American IQ;
2) Therefore if you add lower IQs to higher IQs you get a lower IQ. That's as obvious as two plus two equals four.
3) Which is the problem.
As Orwell pointed out, this is not the first time in history we've had this problem. And the first clear sign that you have this problem is that it cannot be discussed.
Jared Taylor was invited to Canada to debate multiculturalism. Needless to say, the invitation was withdrawn. It was finally realized t hat multiculturalism is not to be debated ANYWHERE. Every major magazine in America, especially National Review, has criticized the "absolutist approach" to the first amendment.
It is a huge weakness in their defenses that they demand an end to what Orwell would have called free speech. No one holds more tightly to this line than the respectable right. Only our Canadian friend Paul Fromm spends his days and nights fighting for Free Speech in Canada. While doing so, he makes some excellent substantive points about race.
Paul bases his success on hitting at the BASIS of the suppression of free speech. A writer for the Wilson Quarterly said that John Stuart Mill was wrong for basing the argument for free speech on utilitarian principles. The writer said that people had the right to say that innate Racial IQs were different, even though that t CANNOT be true.
Mill said that free speech was useful BECAUSE THOSE IN POWER CAN BE WRONG. The writer said one thing "we" all agree on - his "we" - was that races couldn't be innately different. He said that such arguments couldn't be justified on utilitarian grounds because they cannot be true.
However you may criticize it, you have to admit that Catholic Church is not the most bouncy and flexible institution on earth. In fact, that's why I chose that church for myself some time ago. Try to find out what the Methodist position is on something.
After chairing a lot of Narcotics Anonymous meetings in Unitarian Churches, my conclusion was that Unitarianism is "The Church of Whatever's Cool." Or, as a friend of mine said, "The Unitarians are based on the principle that is, at most, one God."
Even after Vatican II when you go into a Catholic Church you know you are in a church. The FEW times I go to church I want to be surrounded by believers. Yes, the priest will talk about trendy issues from time to time, but mostly each Homily is from the Bible.
My point here is that while the Catholic Church is known for being unbending, the simple fact is that almost everything adopted in Vatican II was not only a contradiction of Vatican I, the Council of Trent, but it could not have been DISCUSSED in Catholic countries after the Council of Trent. As in the case of the Declaration of Independence, no one ever mentions that the Council of Trent was adopted in WARTIME.
I have never read a single discussion of the Declaration of Independence as the basic document in American history which ever MENTIONED that it was a WAR document.
Wartime is little different. The Anti-baptist Severus was burned by Calvin, but it was one case where Calvin and the Pope were in perfect accord: "Severus was silent until the fire reached his face, when he began to scream. Twenty minutes later, he was silent."
No, that attitude didn't leave a lot of room for discussion.
In the 1960s, the hippies had a Free Speech Movement at Berkeley. It consisted of yelling obscene and blasphemous words at each other. TO a liberal or a respectable conservative, this is free speech. To the WQ writer t his is free speech.
Both liberals and respectable conservatives already HAVE the truth. Free speech to them is a pure indulgence, without purpose. It consists of curses of nasty phrases or of political heresy. To them these are all the same.
That is not the purpose of freedom of speech, the right to say two plus two is four. But no mainline commentator could possibly know that.