The Weapon of Meta-Speech
By John “Birdman” Bryant
There is a logical way to battle against politically-correct laws such as those against Holocaust denial and race hate that have intimidated most of the world into an uncomfortable and often raging silence. What I mean is that every assertion now hedged by illegality naturally gives rise to a series of questions which can be used as a weapon against the suppressors of free speech without violating the law. For example, on the subject of Holocaust denial, if it is illegal to question the Six Million number, then we can use this fact to raise questions such as the following:
“Why are we prevented by law from inquiring as to the correctness of the Six Million number? In whose interest is it to take away the right of historians to do their job, and of people to inquire about their history? Why must free speech be suppressed in favor of an orthodox history written by the government? Why has free inquiry — supposedly the fundamental principle of a democracy — been suspended over this particular point? Has history now been turned into a religion, in whose belief we must accede or else, like the heretics of old, we will be imprisoned, fined and effectively burned at the stake? Who benefits from this suppression? Is it an ethnic group, and how do they benefit? Are they just trying to hide embarrassing facts, or are they making money and deriving power from it? Does not the suppression of free speech on a particular topic mean that this group is really the dominant political power? Is it not true that the only history that must be supported by law is history that is false? How can a democracy operate unless we have the right to discuss all issues in a free and uninhibited manner?”
Likewise, for race hate laws, each statement which is made illegal naturally gives rise to a series of questions which may then be asked to the embarrassment of the speech-suppressors without themselves breaking any law. For example, if it is illegal to point out that blacks are noticeably more criminal than whites, then we can ask such questions as the following:
“If we have an ethnic or racial group in our midst that is noticeably more criminal than other ethnic or racial groups, then why is it illegal to point this out? And if the answer to that question is that it produces hatred for the more criminally-inclined race, then can’t we say that such hatred is good? Does not our government encourage us to hate the enemy who attacks us, and are we not being attacked? Is it not good to hate hateful things? Is it not a good thing for people to love their own kind, and to hate those who threaten them? Do we have a right to preserve our race, and does that not require that we hate those who attack us?”
As should be clear, it is easy to think up unprosecutable questions which will embarrass the enemies of free speech. But what is also important is to recognize the mechanism at work here: If speech type A is suppressed, then the best strategy against the situation is not, I believe, to use A and get prosecuted and martyred, but rather to use what philosophers call META-SPEECH, or speech ABOUT speech, in which one raises issues of suppression, and not the issues of speech type A. It is important to understand this, because if an effort is made to suppress META-speech — a difficult task, but at least conceivable — then the strategy is to move to META-META-speech.
I have raised the issue of using meta-speech before, but have not yet seen anyone so much as acknowledge its existence, much less attempt to employ it as an effective political weapon. Maybe it is time that the stupid goys who are politically active in our modern Foreskinner-dominated world ought to make use of a potentially-important tool that is being handed to them on a silver platter.
Wherever the line has been drawn by our Jew-dicial masters, that is the place to begin the fight. In particular, if censorship has been imposed, there are at least two places to start fighting:
(a) We start publicly asking WHY censorship has been imposed, who it benefits, who imposed it, and who aproves of it.
(b) We seek out the most prestigious members of the community and get their agreement to speak out against censorship, provided that at least X number of other distinguished persons speak out against it. (I call this a ‘trigger agreement’ — enuf persons who come on board will trigger a public statement supported by the entire group, while until the support is strong enuf, no one will be required to stand without such support.)
Restrictions on discussing the Holocaust are an important special case; for not only can the above stragegies can be employed, but there are additional important ones. In particular, if ‘judicial notice’ is taken of the Holocaust, one begins by asking what precisely is ‘judicially noticed’ — is it the 6 million, and if so, how does this square with other facts, such as that the official number of deaths at Auschwitz has recently been reduced by 3 million or more. As another point, since the IMT alleges other means of killing, such as steaming and electrocution, one should begin asking questions about these absurdities so as to bring out contradictions and lacunae. The point here is to come up with contradictions in the official version which make ‘judicial notice’ absurd on its face, all while doing it within the constraints of the law.
On reflection, it is hard to keep from thinking that Germany is really much different than it was under nazi rule — Goebbels burned books then, and the present German government does exactly the same thing now. Furthermore, in the Middle Ages, the wise men of witch-burning were German, and their book — Malleus Malificarum (The Hammer of Witches) was the Little Red Book of this particular enterprise. Indeed, Catholics were the original book-burners and torturers, and a strong strain of Catholicism and its methods runs thru Germany in spite of the Reformation which originated there.