This post is also available in: English
The timeless (and timely) CH maxim Diversity + Proximity = War includes the tacit rider that War can mean any sort of confrontation that doesn’t hit the bloodletting threshold. For instance, Diversity under one sociopolitical umbrella will inevitably result in, first, curbs on free speech and, finally, the gutting of 1A because the number and size of warring tribes won’t agree on the contours of a principle laid out, defended, and deeply felt by Anglo-Protestant White men, and the sphere of bannable “offensive” speech will enlarge to accommodate the sensitivities of increasingly antagonistic and thin-skinned groups all jockeying to acquire the power that will allow them to be the arbiters of which speech counts as “opposing viewpoint” and which is “hate”.
Today, nonWhites and leftoid Whites have allied to exercise full spectrum control over speech and to effectively silence any voices to the right of Shree Baboo. They rationalize their speech suppression with a glib retort that is effortlessly dismantled by Brendan O’Neill:
An MPCer adds a coda that is essentially a reiteration of the Diversity + Proximity = War equation,
Good statement from Brendan O’Neill. To expand on his idea a bit, there are linguistic and ethnic limits to the plausibility of free speech. Free speech as a way of life is communal and depends on conventions (many absorbed unconsciously from homogeneous communities) that lack the power to transcend the gulfs of racial and international difference. The only way to satisfy one-worlders and libertarians on the subject of free speech is to limit it in such a way that no individual is ever allowed to say anything with the potential to offend or hurt the feelings of any other individual, anywhere. Which is preposterous.
Free speech is under attack because the critical mass of its enemies is rising, or you could say that the minimum consensus of its champion is shrinking. It can’t survive without a solid majority of people who have in common a galaxy of shared assumptions about society and only differ about some questions around how society ought to operate. As it stands in America today, the plurality of worldviews being aggressively aired makes free speech anathema. The one worldview that would support free speech (basic Christianity) is the one that is of course ruthlessly suppressed.
The trend lines point to the dissolution of the Bill of Rights. America is only an abstract idea if that idea means the whole world gets to squat here and take a giant dump on Anglo-Protestantism and its codified Weltanschauung (the Constitution).
The two main problems facing free speech proponents trying to reconcile their principle with Mass Diversity are that diversity reduces trust even among Whites (and lower trust means greater suspicion of the intent of others’ speech) and different ethnic/racial groups have different notions about the form taken and value derived of allowable speech. These different notions aren’t alterable by the magic of assimilation; the contradictions go the bone, born before bred.
The backwash of all this Diversity (and virtue signaling for Diversity) is threatening to drown the very ideas that “America is an idea” cheerleaders claim to venerate. Our self-contradictory nation is tearing itself apart and the doxings, deplatformings, and demonetizations are the clearest evidence of it.
If American ideals are to survive, America must jettison its most recent and artificial idea that ideals are separable from blood.