“Sticks and stones might break my bones but names will never hurt me.” This is how schoolchildren were taught to deal with taunts and teasing in healthier days. It was a lesson well learnt at an early age and it worked. It prepared the child for the wider world and the criticism that inevitably followed in life, some merited, some exaggerated and some unwarranted. By its nature, it recognised the essence of free speech: freedom to criticise and freedom to express sentiments but the common sense to ignore unjustified criticism and unpalatable ‘names’.
A Reuters article has shed light on efforts by the political class in Germany to clamp down on what is described as ‘hate speech’. So-called ‘hate speech’ is rarely defined. Usually, it centres on the communication of opinion that contradicts the unwritten rules of political-correctness, another term for social Marxism. Orwell understood the processes involved and he wrote about them in his masterpiece, ‘1984’.
“Facebook’s ground rules forbid bullying, harassment and threatening language, but critics say it does not enforce them properly.
On Friday, the firm said it had hired a unit of the publisher Bertelsmann to monitor and delete racist posts on its platform in Germany.
Top German politicians and celebrities have voiced concern about the rise of anti-foreigner comments on Facebook and other social media as the country struggles to cope with a tide of new migrants that amounted to 1.1 million last year alone.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has urged Facebook to do more, and the Justice Ministry set up a task force with Facebook and other social networks and Internet service providers with the aim of identifying criminal posts more quickly and taking them down.”
It is not enough that Facebook already has laws in place to forbid anti-social conduct; it is not enough that most governments have in place laws to forbid language and activity that will cause disorder and a breach of the peace.
Clearly, what the political class have in mind are laws to forbid the discussion of multiculturalism, the extirpation of identity and, therefore, the snuffing out of the nation state and the people that comprise it. Similarly, they fear discussion of the consequences of immigration, not least in terms of crime rates and the identity of those behind such crime.
With the deliberate import of millions of unassimilable alien elements into Germany and elsewhere in Europe, sentiments on the part of those who fear for their environment, employment, wages, identity, heritage and future and, not least, the future of the next generation, run high. Often, those affected live in the poorer areas of the country and it is here that immigrants are most often funnelled. The politicians who support such demographic change take care to live elsewhere, well away from the bedlam they have visited upon their people. Those same people, sometimes poorly educated and leaderless, often express themselves in colourful language amongst their friends and others – to whom they can now reach via the internet – who feel equally betrayed.
To facilitate the wicked plan of those who despise their own kind and desire the extirpation of their nation and people, it has become necessary to implement even more drastic restrictions on free speech. Before the imposition of multiculturalism, such restrictions were not required and for the simple reason that we all lived in cohesive societies. In those days, we all knew where we were headed because we all knew from where we were descended. Whether rich or poor, we possessed our own culture, history, traditions and identity. We shared a common affinity and we drew strength from this. We did not resent looking after those less able, because they were our own kind.
Involved in this policy to curtail freedom of expression, unsurprisingly, is the media – in this case the German publishing group, Bertelsmann. The international media has an interest in the internet and social media and for the simple reason that it can no longer control and monopolise the thoughts, opinions and expressions of those who use such outlets. Simply put, if the media does not reflect public opinion – and it has long failed to do so throughout Europe and the West – then those elements of public opinion, who do not allow the media to do their thinking for them, will seek a platform for expression via the internet.
This is where the censure of the internet begins.
The reality is that each European nation is now in an undeclared war for survival. The enemy comprises those like Merkel, who desire the destruction of the European peoples, who have never honestly proclaimed their real policies and who, in many instances, have never identified themselves. These are the same people behind political-correctness. The end victims are the unborn; the generations of the future, who have never been consulted and for whom the present generation are increasingly negligent trustees of a great cultural legacy.