Last week, there was a kerfuffle as the initiators of the Rosetta Stone Project for Col. West were suddenly informed of being naughty, naughty people and bashed about the head with copyright claims. The claims appear to be legitimate, but they were handled about as badly as they could have been without resorting to actual out-of-the-blue legal attacks. GoV and others involved attempted to explain the situation but were accused of, amongst other things, libel and smears, and then treated to a barrage of unprovoked and highly personal insults. If “not a team player” had made the mix it would have been the perfect storm.

This week we’ve seen the finale of a rumbling between Kurt Westergaard and the anti-jihad over the use of his somewhat infamous cartoon, which has been used widely without his permission.

In both cases there’s a legitimate claim of copyright. In both cases the central figure seems to be Ms Pamella Geller, who has up to now been a shining and somewhat entertaining beacon of the anti-jihad. In one case she’s defending the copy rights of the creator of a work. In the other case, she’s opposing those same rights. Admirable as her actions are up to now I do wonder what is motivating her inconsistency in this particular instance, not to mention the vicious insults she threw against someone of whom she had, up to very recently, been a staunch supporter and ally.

Regarding the copyright, Westergaard has seen his work used, often without attribution, and without any granted permission, to promote a wide variety of events that he has no involvement in and this continued exposure of his work places him in the public eye – and in the sights of the jihad. He has already faced one assault in his home; he’s understandably squishy about the idea of being killed over something that he isn’t that supportive of – Westergaard probably wants to live a normal life and presumably believes that the best way to do that is to get himself out of public view.

The important element of this conflict is the idea that we are standing up for our rights as a culture. Westergaard is simply asking that his copyright is respected – that is, his right to determine how, when and by whom his work is copied and distributed. The right of property is fundamental to western culture and one that I personally feel will allow us to push back the islamic threat. Trampling on those rights when they become inconvenient not only weakens our message, but also weakens our very cause.

This one was on whether the comparison of the current UK government to the nazi state is valid, written a couple of weeks back.

Sure, the government isn’t killing jews and gypsies but, the indoctrination of youth into the service of the state, the increasing state control of private capital and the constant chipping away at anything that isn’t “healthy” (As defined by the state) are all consistent with the national socialist program. Hitler also dropped in a massive state-funded stimulus package and had an obsession with environmental affairs (it’s often remarked that the nazi party was the first environmentalist movement to gain traction).

None of these things on their own make someone a nazi. I’m not saying that. I would even consider myself a conservationist. Being “Green” or supporting the idea of some level of state intervention or “stimulation” doesn’t make anyone a nazi (there are sound economic arguments for and against each of these positions). It’s the convergence of interests that leads to the totalitarian state, with its inevitable descent into absolute control of every aspect of the individual’s life, potentially up to the “removal” of undesirable elements by force, which produces valid comparisons to nazi germany.

Try and argue that our government *isn’t* trying to control every aspect of our personal life. And despite the argument I can hear brewing, democracy is not incompatible with the totalitarian state. In fact it can tend to produce it if you aren’t careful – as a wise man once observed the democratic state ceases to function when the electorate realises they can vote the wealth of the treasury into their own pocket – to which I would add, at which point the totalitarian state is almost inevitable. Once the totalitarian state has begun to coalesce then democratic elections mean nothing, as the state acts in spite of the wishes of the electorate and continues to consolidate its control through legislation ostensibly aimed as “undesirables” and newly defined criminal activity. You can vote for the new guy who will promise the earth, but when the state continues along the same path as before, proscribing activities that were seen as a natural right just a few years ago, then it is a totalitarian state.

Successive governments in this country have, directly or via the chambers of the EU, continued on the path of proscribing activities that were, up to that point, natural rights, shielded by the use of high profile “issue” legislation that allows them to slip their restrictions through almost unnoticed. These activities are not immoral or unethical. They are merely against the law. The state we live in has acted, up to this point, over the last fifteen years, to produce a situation where everything an individual does is potentially illegal, so that each of us can be forced to live our lives according to the direction the state wishes. Therefore we live in a totalitarian state.

A person, especially one not trained to consider what one sees with at least a bit of dispassionate skepticism, can simply absorb ideas passively by watching films or television.

More true than you even realise. When I was doing my undergrad, part of the course on media analysis included information on how the brain reacts to television and film compared to other forms of media. Television and film specifically create a very passive state in the viewer. The combination of the hypnotic effect of a fast strobe light and the generally passive state the viewer must enter to take part in the piece work together to produce an incredibly suggestible state of mind, one where ideas are much more easily absorbed by the viewer than in any other situation. It’s akin to hypnotic suggestion. Film in particular is immensely powerful in this regard, as the scale and overwhelming force of a film in a cinema strip away any natural defences against the ideas being presented to you.

C.S. Lewis would have described this as the difference between contemplation and enjoyment of a particular thing, which he outlined in Medition in a Toolshed, where he compared Contemplation and Enjoyment by refernece to a beam of light shining through a crack in the door. Contemplation is looking at the beam of light from the outside, in the dark of the shed, seeing the motes of dust twinkling in it and being able to see that it’s a beam of light, where it falls, what angle it’s at. Enjoyment is akin to looking along the beam, so that you no longer see the beam of light but are immersed totally in it; along the beam you see sky, clouds, the top of a tree. You no longer contemplatively see the beam of light, you are “enjoying” it.

Looking at a film from outside, reading the plot and examining the ideas contained produces an contemplative effect that isn’t nearly as potent as the “enjoyment” effect caused by actually watching the film. When you contemplate a film you examine it’s characteristics in a different way to when you are enjoying it. This state of enjoyment is where film and television become so powerful and consequently so easily used for manipulation. In the enjoyment of the film you are totally immersed in it to the point where your own self, your id, almost becomes lost and quiescent. “You” nearly cease to exist, your role is so passive and so enjoined. In that state, the message presented to you is absorbed as easily as a sponge soaking up water.

Perhaps with the exception of staged theatre, no other media has this effect. Not even computer games. Anything that requires an active participation consequently requires a contemplation, and contemplation requires personality and individuality. And whilst both contemplation and enjoyment – looking at the beam and along it – are necessary modes of thought one must be aware that each requires the other to be whole. To be totally looking along the beam one must necessarily give up looking at the beam – one must give up more logical and rational assessment to become lost in the experience.

Most people in the industry don’t even realise this. They just instinctively know that television and film are very powerful tools for spreading a message.

If I were to watch this film it’d be on my computer with the lights on, a cup of tea, and perhaps with some music. That would prevent me from losing myself in the spectacle and allow me to rationally examine its message and undertones. I’d be able to enjoy the impressive special effects without losing myself in the message. I certainly wouldn’t watch it in a cinema.

It’s a done deal. A fait acomplis. No way out of it In the process of this constitution treaty becoming law I learned something about my father that I didn’t really want to learn, but which, perhaps, is inevitable. Brave as he is, free thinker that he is and smart as he is – god knows where that bit went, I sure didn’t get it – he sees no point in fighting. On his sixtieth birthday my uncle and his family came to visit. My uncle is Irish to the bone and a fighter like his forebears, and was in typically rambunctious mood over the possibility that Cameron would backtrack on his promise to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, taxes in general and the terrible fate awaiting politicians he despised, which would be all of them. Dad’s attitude was… knuckle down, try to pay as little as possible and try not to catch their attention. Don’t make an issue out of it and they won’t come after you. And yesterday, I brought up the issue of the treaty and the referendum being called off, expecting at least indignation or agreement that Something Should Be Done. He replied that nothing could be done. It’s law now.

Recently I’ve been feeling a little nagging voice that says it’s not worth fighting any more. It says give up and live your life as best you can. It’s the voice that no doubt millions have heard in the past as they worked around and behind the back of the system imposed on them by autocrats, trying to claw back as much if their pittance as they could from the maw of the state whilst avoiding its notice. I feel… it would be so easy to just go back to sleep. But, I’m young(ish) and still have a long life ahead of me. I think dad has decided to listen to that voice. He no doubt feels he deserves some peace in his life after the constant up and down of the last couple of decades. No doubt he doesn’t want to go back to the days when we lived on the edge of starving and he sees that any resistance to the growth of the EU in our lives would threaten the relative stability we’ve achieved as a family. He’s proud. I’m proud, which is why I hear the same voice.

I have, in the past, encountered people who assume that the country as a whole is populated by sheep who are so dumb they’ll follow any siren voice (mixing metaphors is fun!) but I think I discovered the truth today. Not sheep. My country is proud, far too proud to admit it has taken the wrong path. My people, all the peope who live here, refuse to accept that they collectively made a mistake in joining and remaining in the EU.

It is far easier to manipulate a proud people than it is to manipulate sheep. The metaphorical sheep will follow the loudest voice and can be snatched away by another in moments. A proud people are much harder to set on a course but, once set on it, are harder still to turn away or convince of their folly. In good times such pride will lead to great heroism and accomplishment, the refusal to stand down in the face of total defeat and the “stiff upper lip” of fable. In bad times, it leads to the tragedy of Scott and the rout of the Indian Mutiny, the bloody mess of the civil war and the loss of an empire.

God once called his people stiff-necked. Stubborn, like an ass, which has its good points but made them hard to save. I suspect the Israelites are not alone in this state of mind.

“…It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

“Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

“Ye sordid prostitutes, have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d; your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse the Augean Stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings, and which by God’s help and the strength He has given me, I now come to do.

“I command ye, therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. You have sat here too long for the good you do. In the name of God, go!”

The unacknowledged resentment against Islamic imperialism. I have to admit this is the first time I’ve heard about a muslim “protest” being so completely wiped out by my fellow countrymen.

In the last few years the British peoples grew polite to the point of obsequiousness in the face of Islamic terror. We didn’t want a row, we didn’t want to fight but they pressed and pressed and now, as the poem goes, there will be merry war.

To a certain extent I was right, but in important ways I was wrong. As is perhaps obvious I completely failed to predict the current, escalating labour situation in the UK that is threatening to be a repeat of the strikes that threatened Thatcher’s government in the late 70 and early 80s.

The dispute in a nutshell is over an Italian company bringing Italian contractors in to maintain a new acquisition, rather than using British workers. This is one of the fundamental aspects of EU labour law – that workers can work anywhere – and it’s bringing to the fore just how little power the government has to act.

Will it bring down the EU? On it’s own doubt it will but it reveals how entangled we are in a dramatic way. It may be the first sign of the coming collapse. It’s just surprising how quickly it arrived, and how fast the temperatures have actually dropped. Yet there’s something enduring about strikers in the snow. Possibly the memories of the winter of discontent still linger in the popular consciousness coupled with the understanding that anyone prepared to stand in sub-zero temperatures might just have a point to make.

I… have different thoughts on the matter, but it caused a thought to strike me. And once I’d recovered from the pain of having a thought occupy my head…

The entire modern western liberal social democratic idea is founded on a continually expanding population, which is required in order to pay for the social benefits that system provides. However, the modern idiom also instils rebellious behaviour and prevents growth beyond the teenage rebellion stage into adulthood. Faced with an authority saying that “the population must grow”, the teen will rebel by saying “no”. It’s likely that the continuing slide or stagnation in most western birth rates, rather than being caused by, as some have claimed, the granting of control over reproduction to women, is largely due to this inbuilt contradiction. Rebellion against authority for the sake of rebellion against authority will inevitably lead to rebellion against the very authority that instigated that rebellious nature in the first place; when that authority attempts to perpetuate its new order, there will be a rebellion against it, caused entirely by its own actions.

I feel a certain amount of ironic hope from this realisation. There will, at some point, be a rebellion against the concept of mass immigration by the very people that previously approved of this mass immigration, because mass immigration is rapidly becoming perceived an activity implemented by authority. Unfortunately there is a down side, in that these rebellious teens-at-heart will not have the intellectual fortitude to deal with the problem in an effective manner and will simply resort to violence. However it does mean that the status quo is not inevitable, nor will it last forever.

Man, I’m writing more when I said I was away than when I was at home…

na·tion·al·i·ty n – \ˌna-shə-ˈna-lə-tē, ˌnash-ˈna-\

1: national character
2: nationalism
3 a: national status ; specifically : a legal relationship involving allegiance on the part of an individual and usually protection on the part of the state
b: membership in a particular nation
4: political independence or existence as a separate nation
5 a: a people having a common origin, tradition, and language and capable of forming or actually constituting a nation-state
b: an ethnic group constituting one element of a larger unit (as a nation)

Nationalism

na·tion·al·ism n – \ˈnash-nə-ˌli-zəm, ˈna-shə-nə-ˌli-zəm\

1: loyalty and devotion to a nation ; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
2: a nationalist movement or government

Dictionary definitions are wonderful things. These two are from Webster’s, the first American dictionary ever written (sometimes claimed as the first ever in the world, though we English did one before them, and probably a lot of other people before us, too).

Dictionaries reveal how little knowledge of our own language some people have. By these definitions, a nationalist is benign. Yet, the modern meaning, as defined by those seeking to destroy the nation-state as a regressive boundary to “world harmony”, is taken as de rigeur by most people. That modern definition takes two forms: the first, of “tribalism”, the accusation that nationalism is simply the outsider-hating tribal nature of man with more organisation. The second is a more refined version of the first, as expressed by George Orwell in his essay Notes on Nationalism, where he took the word “nationalism” and simply gave it his own meaning. Given his most famous creation of newspeak this is, perhaps, a little ironic.

By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’. But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved.
By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive,
both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, NOT for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

At this point we can already see the striking thought: that patriotism and nationalism are two different and possibly even diametrically opposed things. Of course, by his definitions, they are, but his definition of nationalism does not ring true; his definition of nationalism seems more akin to the collectivism of socialist thinking than the dictionary definition mentioned above. Given the fact that Orwell’s thoughts were bounded by the collectivist dialectic this is not surprising.

Unfortunately this idea of nationalism – that of hatred and fear of the outsider, rather than a positive expression of attachment to those of a similar mind – has become the normative one to the extent that some so-called nationalists themselves express their nationalism through this same view. Their perception of “the nation” has been inverted from a positive, defensive mode to a negative, assaultive mode. They become statists, seeking the “strong man” leader and the mindless devotion of the nation-collective to the goals of the nation-state.

The ideal Nation would not be statist. It would be defensive and border-strong, and no doubt have a strong leadership, but it would be administratively weak within its borders. The anglo-saxon model of monarchy prior to the 19th century would be a perfect example, where the King and Government seated themselves above everything but actually had very little impact on the individual. Or the US government prior to the expansion westward, which was concerned with just two things: the borders, and the running of the postal service.

For a little sanity we have to turn to another socialist, who also happens to be a zionist. The zionist movement is an odd creature, determined to create and defend the nation of Israel yet also populated by the sort of people who would, in other circumstances, be stood against the creation of the nation state. It may well be a very good example of the joke of putting three rabbis in a room and getting four opinions.

Anyway, in his essay, The Zionist Idea, Arthur Hertzberg wrote:

We call a nation free when it can materially, intellectually, and morally develop itself, without any external trammels whatever being placed upon that development. If one nation, by reason of conquest or in any other fashion causes another nation to become dependent upon it, there will remain of the second nation only a certain number of denationalized individuals, that is, persons no longer able to give expression to their special collective spirit, that is persons having lost their collective freedom.

As we can see the reference to “collectivism” here is used in a positive sense. The problem with taking absolute moral stands for or against words (as I sometimes do) is that words are subtle – they are not singular entities, they have more than one meaning. Hence dictionaries.

Here, the “collective” should be taken to mean the collection, the associated like-minded with common cause – the body – rather than the manufactured undifferentiated collective of Orwell’s thought.

Firmly established and homogeneous groups, having settled traits and a clear-cut awareness of themselves necessarily resist. It is as true of collectivities as it is of individual men that the weak yield and the strong persevere. However that may be, we are confronted here with an historic fact- the maintenance and the survival in the midst of the nations of certain individuals belonging to different nationalities, by which I mean men who have preserved forms of being different from the forms of those who surround them. These individuals, by the very fact that they have held out, suffered a constraint, since all peoples have an inevitable tendency to reduce the heterogeneous elements existing among them. Hence their freedom is diminished, and if they continue in their stubborn refusal to yield, they will be able to keep their individual liberty only on the condition that they are able to win back the collective liberty which they have lost. In short, the rebirth of their nationality is the prerequisite of their individual freedom.

Here, of course, Hertzberg was referring to Jews living in other nations but, by framing it in such terms as this, he has made it obvious to see that these ideas refer to any nationality forced to live within a larger and often oppressive nationality.

Or even a smaller, oppressive nationality. Colonisation did produce similar effects where those colonised felt that their ways were being overrun by the colonisers. Of course the arguments for and against such things are legion, and the fact remains that the colonisation of some countries by the British Empire had, and still has, tangible benefits in those countries. Nevertheless the fact that they fought underlines the argument: that a people who find their ways being slowly, or rapidly dismantled will become increasingly nationalistic.

The understanding of that nationalism needs to be clearly defined. Nationalists are confused because of the modern, inverted definition of nationalism. They want to defend their way of life and their people but the only understanding they have of that is necessarily a negative one, so they turn to those negative ways as the only way they know of.

This leads to condemnation by others. First, by those who would be nationalists themselves if they understood what nationalism entailed – patriotism, but more. Second, by those who see the modern definition of nationalism as a very effective means to attack nationalist desires – that is, they take the modern definition and use it first to drive a wedge between nationalists and those who would be their supporters and, second, to condemn those nationalists themselves as “racists”.

The fact is, European nations are being assaulted by the collectivist ideology of he left and that assault and dismemberment is awakening nationalistic feelings. Rather than condemning those feelings as a resurgence of “nazism”, we should be attempting to educate these nationalists as to what nationalism actually entails. First, and foremost, it is a positive force. It is the individual demanding his freedom. We can argue about the rest later.

I’m developing a real appreciation for C.S. Lewis. His writings are reminding me why I remained a Christian when others had given it up, and quite what Christianity is really meant to be.

He also has some interesting things to say on current events, despite being dead since the 60s. On the subject of LGF, for instance, he wrote an essay called “After Priggery – What?” which I’m reproducing below.

Read to the end before reacting. You’ll be surprised.

After Priggery — What?

No doubt priggery is a horrid thing, and the more moral the horrider. To avoid a man’s society because he is poor or ugly or stupid may be bad; but to avoid itbecause he is wicked — with the all but inevitable implication that you are less wicked (at least in some respect) — is dangerous and disgusting. We could all go on to develop this theme at any length and without the slightest effort. Smug — complacent — Pharasaical — Victorian — parable of the Parhisee and the Publican… it writes itself. Upon my word, I have some difficulty bridling the pen.

But the real question is what are we to put in the place of priggery. Private vices, we were taught long ago, are public benefits. Which means that when you remove a vice you must put a virtue in its place — a virtue which will produce the same public benefits. It will not do simply to cut out priggery and leave it at that.

These reflections arose out of the sort of conversation one often has. Suppose a man tells me that he has recently been lunching with a gentleman who we shall call Cleon. My informant is an honest man and a man of good will. Cleon is a wicked journalist, a man who disseminates for money falsehoods calculated to produce envy, hatred, suspicion and confusion. At least that is what I believe Cleon to be; I have caught him lying myself. But it does not matter for the purposes of the present argument whether my judgement of Cleon is correct or no. The point is that my honest friend fully agreed with it. The very reason why he mentioned the lunch party was that he wanted to tell me some more than usually foetid instance of Cleon’s mendacity.

That is the position we are in after the expulsion of priggery. My friend believes Cleon to be as false as hell; but he meets him on perfectly friendly terms over a lunch table. In a priggish or self-righteous society Cleon would occupy the same social status as a prostitute. His social contacts would extend only to clients, fellow processionals, moral welfare-workers, and the police. Indeed, in a society which was rational as well as priggish (if such a combination would occur) his status would be a good deal lower than hers. The intellectual virginity which he has sold is a clearer treasure than her physical virginity. He gives his patrons a baser pleasure than she. He infects them with the more dangerous diseases. Yet not one of us hesitates to eat with him, drink with him, joke with him, shake his hand, and, what is much worse, the very few of us refrain from reading what he writes.

It will hardly be maintained that this complaisance springs from a sudden increase in our charity. We are not associating with Cleon as a friar or a clergyman from a mission or a member of the Salvation Army might associate with a prostitute. It is not our Christian love for the villain that has conquered our hatred of the villainy. We do not even pretend to love the villain; I have never in my live heard anyone speak well of him. As for the villainy, if we do not love it, we take it as a think of course with a tolerant laugh or a shrug. We have lost the invaluable faculty of being shocked — a faculty which has hitherto almost distinguished the Man or Woman from the beast or the child. In a word, we have not risen above priggery; we have sunk below it.

The result is that things are a good deal to easy for Cleaon. Even when the rewards of dishonesty are strictly alternative to those of honesty some men will choose them. But Cleon finds he can have both. he can enjoy the sense of secret power and all the sweets of a perpetually gratified inferiority complex while at the same time having the entrée to honest society. From such conditions what can we expect but an increasing number of Cleons? And that must be our ruin. If we remain a democracy they render impossible the formation of any healthy public opinion. If — absit omen — the totalitarian threat is realised, they will be the cruellest and dirtiest tools of government.

I submit, therefore, that the rest of us must really return to the old and ‘priggish’ habit of sending such people to Coventry. And I am not quite convinced that we need to be prigs in doing so.l The charge brought against us — Cleon himself will do it very well, possible next week — will be that in cold-shouldering a man for his vices we are claiming to be better than he. This sounds very dreadful, but I wonder whether it may not be a turnip ghost?

If I meet a friend in the street who is drunk and pilot him home, I do, by the mere act of piloting him, imply that I am sober. If you press it this implies the claim that I am, for that one moment and in that one respect, ‘better’ than he. Mince it as you will, the mere brute fact is that I can walk straight and he can’t. I am not saying in the least that I am in general a better man. Or again, in a lawsuit, I say I am in the right and the other man is in the wrong. I claim that particular superiority over him, It is really quite off the point to remind me that he has qualities of courage, good-temper, unselfishness and the lie. It may well be so. I never denies it. But the question was about the title to a field or he damage done by a cow.

Now it seems to me that we can (and should) blackball Cleon at every club and avoid his society and boycott his paper without in the least claiming any general superiority to him. We know perfectly well that he may be in the last resort a better man than we. We do not know by what states he became the thing he is, nor how hard he may have struggled to be something better. Perhaps a bad heredity … unpopularity at school … complexes … a disgraceful record from the last war but one still nagging him on wakeful nights … a disastrous marriage. Who knows? Perhaps strong and sincere political convictions first bred intense desire that his side should prevail, and this first taught him to lie for what seemed to be a good cause and then, little by little, lying became his profession. God knows, we are not saying that we, placed as Cleon, would have done better. But for the moment, however it came about — and let is sing non nobis loud enough to live the roof — we are not professional liars and he is. We may have a hundred vices from which he is free. But on one particular matter we are, if you insist, ‘better’ than he.

And that one thing which he does and we do not do is poisoning the whole nation. To prevent the poisoning is an urgent necessity. It cannot be prevented by law: partly because we do not wish the law to have too much power over freedom of speech, and partly, perhaps, for another reason. The only sae way of silencing Cleon is by discrediting him. What cannot be done — and indeed ought not to be done — by law, can be done by public opinion. A ’sanitary cordon’ can be drawn around Cleon. If no one but Cleon’s like read his paper, much less meet him on terms of social intercourse, his trade will soon be reduced to harmless proportions.

To abstain from reading — and a fortiori from buying — a paper which you have once caught telling lies seems a very moderate form of asceticism. Yet how few practice it! Again and again I find people with Cleon’s dirty sheets in their hands. They admit that he is rogue but ‘one must keep up with the times, must know what is being said’. That is one of the ways Cleon puts it across to us. It is a fallacy. If we must find out what bad men are writing, and must therefore buy their papers, and therefore enable their papers to exist, who does not see that this supposed necessity of observing the evil is just what maintains the evil? It may in general be dangerous to ignore an evil; but not if he evil is one that perishes by being ignored.

But, you say, even if we ignore it others will not. Cleon’s readers are not all the half-heartedly honest people whom I describe. Some of them are real rascals like Cleon himself. They are not interested in truth. That, no doubt, is so. but I am not convinced that the number of thoroughgoing rascals is large enough to keep Cleon afloat. In the present ‘tolerant’ age he has the support and countenance not only of the rascals but of thousands of honest people as well. Is it not at least worth our while to try the experiment of leaving him and the rascals alone? We might try it for five years. let him for five years be sent to Coventry. I doubt if you will find him still rampant at the end. And why not begin today by countermanding your order for his paper?

© Lewis – whenever it was

Now, the argument can be applied in either direction, however the fact remains that LGF has resorted to propagating lies in order to “prove” that various European political parties are “neo nazi”. Like Cleon, the people behind these lies are getting airtime and mindshare that they simply do not deserve, and LGF is supplying that air time.

I don’t care if you think LGF is a good news aggregator or whether you think the posts themselves are mostly all right and it’s “just the comments” that you avoid. Giving LGF the time of day gives it the oxygen it needs to continue disseminating falsity.

Since LGF refuses to repudiate these false sources we must, in our turn, repudiate LGF. It simply cannot be trusted. We cannot say “he has some good points now and then” and tolerate the falsehood, because our very toleration of that falsehood allows it to continue being spread.