Free Speech and The Inquisitorial vs Adversarial Paradigm

Free speech is often promoted in these circles as a principle, but I would posit that may be a mistake.
In the context of a normative, racinated, healthy, cohesive society? Maybe that's not a bad idea.
… But we don't have that. Not at all.

So let's consider what free speech actually does.
For that purpose, I'm going to utilize the paradigm of inquisitorial vs adversarial, as seen in judicial governance in Europe and the US (respectively).
To spoonfeed a bit, its basically like this: The adversarial position generates a truth-outcome via competition between two parties (in coordination with the evidence at hand) before a third party, while the inquisitorial position generates a truth-outcome via investigation and analysis of evidentiary data on behalf of a third party.

These are likewise the two positions as regards speech, or at least, these are two positions.

Attached: welp.png (898x1114 1.37 MB, 89.2K)

Consider free speech in the context of an adversarial context.
The consequential outcome of such a position is that truth-outcomes are heavily dependent upon presentation, that is, the evidence may well become irrelevant in the face of charisma and/or persuasive speech.
This position is considered beneficial in many cases, in that the authoritative body (state government in most cases) is restricted from inhibiting the speech of citizens… However, as a consequence of that position, "truth" is dictated not by evidence necessarily, but by the capacity of the presenter to espouse a charismatic or persuasive case. In other words, while it does ensure that the authoritative body cannot silence dissenters of a beneficial nature (assuming a corrupt authoritative body), it also cannot silence subversives of a malevolent or harmful nature (assuming a charismatic/persuasive actor).
Effectively, this position espouses a stance of hesitancy to accept the authoritative body, whatever it may be, as anything but corrupt, and thus untrustworthy to dictate "truth" and instead imposing that responsibility upon the masses themselves (a dubious prospect, given the masses are easily swayed by pleasant falsehoods even when confronted with enormous amounts of evidence disproving such falsehoods), and likewise espouses a stance of belief in the idea that "truth will out", despite the fact that, as evidence by our current status, this simply is not the case, particularly within such a paradigm. That is, "truth will out" is an obvious falsehood wherein the "truth" is dictated by what the masses can be convinced is reality and the capacity of those actors attempting to sway the masses (often irrelevant of evidence).

Attached: SPHINX.JPG (2381x1282, 220.79K)

On the other hand, consider free speech in the context of an inquisitorial context.
The consequential outcome of such a position is that the truth-outcomes are heavily dependent upon evidence and the third party, that is, the evidence takes a greater priority than the capacity of those presenting it to be persuasive/charismatic, however that evidence, or portions thereof, can become irrelevant in the face of a biased or ideologically-motivated third party which refuses to acknowledge it.
This position is considered hazardous in many cases, in that, even assuming a position wherein the authoritative body is assumed to be ideal, the authoritative body is not restricted from inhibiting the speech of citizens, though, in an ideal scenario, the authoritative body's aim in application of restriction is oriented around the benefit or harm represented to the masses, which under ideal circumstances are not a deracinated and miscegenated mess, but a cohesive collective with a largely-shared identity and ideal/vision… However, as we know, the ideal conditions are not presently extant in our lands, as the authoritative body is anything but unbiased, nigh-universally acting in-league with hostile external factors whose interests directly conflict with the genuine interests of the masses, and thus as a consequence of this position it often becomes the case that "truth" is dictated by those who espouse an ideologically-motivated bias against acknowledgement of unpleasant or ideologically-unsupported "truth" and thereby any evidence supportive of such. In other words, while it does not represent significant hazard where the third-party authoritative body is acting in-line with the ideal conditions for such a body, where such conditions are absent there is the potential for significant hazard.
Effectively, this position espouses a stance of willingness to accept the authoritative body, whatever it may be, as anything but corrupt, and thus trustworthy to dictate "truth" and thus witholding that responsibility from the masses in that the authoritative body decides what the "truth" is, ideally in terms prioritizing potential hazard to the masses as the consequence of pleasant falsehoods being levied (such as in the case of Communist subversives), and restricts speech on those grounds (a dubious prospect given the potential for willful refusal to acknowledge evidence as motivated by ideology or self-interest, as in the case of most modern Western state-governing authoritative bodies). Likewise, this position espouses a stance that "truth will out" is a falsehood, as the consequence of acknowledgement and prioritization of the fact that, as evidenced by our current status, this simply is not the case, particularly in such a paradigm; that is, "truth will out" is an obvious falsehood wherein the "truth" is dictated by what the masses can be conviced is reality and the capacity of those actors attempting to sway the masses, and the assumption from this stance is then made that, given this condition, it is requisite that the authoritative body, assumed to be trustworthy, dictate "truth" and impose upon those attempting to levy "untruth", for example such pleasant falsehoods as promoted by Communist subversives and proponents of the race realism-associated "socio-economic excuse" cope, upon the masses, to their detriment.

Attached: Oh, Canada.png (1187x1043, 1.1M)

I'm not really sure what position to take in this context.

From what I can put together, it seems that the ideal scenario of the inquisitorial position is the more preferable, wherein the authoritative body CAN be viewed as trustworthy to dictate truth in this regard; however this scenario has historically resulted in corruption and malfeasance on behalf of the authoritative body up to and including the attempt to silence those speaking righteously against the body on the basis of corruption in the form of restriction of speech for purposes other than the well-being of the populace (for example self-interest) or imposition consequential of somehow embracing a falsehood (for example many Western nations wherein ideologically-motivated individuals will act to promote political policies which, while seemingly beneficial in the context of the assumed falsehood, are actually detrimental thereto), thus arguably justifying the adversarial positions implementation, which merely takes the authoritative body (assumed to be inevitably prone to such corruptions) out of the equation and places the individual (oft bereft of knowledge, context or capacity as to effectively judge "truth") as the priority dictator of "truth" derivative from the argumentation of actors (of {both knowingly and unknowingly} righteous or malicious intent) whose charisma and persuasiveness can easily overcome any amount of evidence acting contrary to their claims/propositions.

My only real conclusion after all this is that the adversarial and inquisitorial systems suss out thusly:
An adversarial system will invariably lead to falsehoods being accepted as "truth" to a widespread, even ubiquitous degree, as the masses are largely incapable of discerning between pleasant or comforting falsehood and unpleasant or discomforting realities, and will thus tend to prefer pleasant falsehoods and seek to embrace such where there is not some force or factor forcing immediate reckoning and will continue to do so until such factor emerges as to force such reckoning, and even then they will often cling to falsehood if such continues to offer comfort or security in the face of reality.
The inquisitorial system thus appears preferable to me, albeit with the understanding that this system is functional where, and only where, a condition as-near to the ideal as possible is itself possible; that is, wherein there is little in the way of corruption on behalf of the authoritative body in terms of unjustified silencing of dissent, that is, silencing of speech for (knowingly or unknowingly) a purpose other than the benefit of the people or towards an outcome (knowingly or unknowingly) that is to their detriment, such that the body in question can be relied upon to dictate "truth" and act accordingly with regard to silencing speech.

Attached: Diversity in Warhammer.jpg (1000x1000, 108.86K)

Bereft of a mechanism to ensure such, bereft of a trustworthy authoritative body, an inquisitorial position as regards freedom of speech appears prone to extreme hazard; however, by the same token, complete removal of the authoritative body, associated with imposition of the requisite "truth" judgements upon the masses, creates conditions wherein hostile charismatic/persuasive subversives are extremely well-situated in terms of efforts to promote pleasant or comforting falsehoods as "truth" to the masses, even in the face of evidentiary data disproving such falsehoods.
IMHO, the adversarial position is one of inevitable downfall as the consequence of the mechanism via which "truth" is dictated, whereas the inquisitorial position is one of theoretically long-term perpetuation in the context of an authoritative body that has a vested and insurmountable interest in the well-being of the masses.

Attached: Mass Bullying.jpg (2120x1364, 450.87K)

Thoughts?

Attached: Black Signal.JPG (1859x1188, 113.42K)

You should have your thread taken down so we can all see how you would like it.

I wouldn't really care, I saved it all in a text file for future use.
Checkin' those dubs.

Attached: 546951cfa41295c1887a28c0dd46c115a0222948b48ad1e18dd63c4b8e9b44cd.jpg (960x758, 106.18K)

Ho fuck…I watched that video two hours ago and I missed that batman allusion. OMG…

To the OP, I think we can distill his duality to the old Leadbelly song, Goodnight Irene.

"Sometimes I lib in de cuntrie,
Sometimes I lib in de town,
sometimes I git me a notion
To jump in de ribber and drownd."

I disagree. The problem isn't free speech, the problem is an overabundance of information that drowns out truths.

It doesn't really matter anyway, because even if we are given "free speech", they'll just claim our views aren't free speech. Maybe that supports your point, I apologise I just wanted to add that.

Also a little Reddit posting will help readability, fuck the haters.

Could jewpedia post a worst facsimile of the 1st Amendment? In case you're having trouble making it out it says, freedom of speech or get in the oven you fucking kike.

Attached: Amendment_1.jpg (3537x234, 258.27K)

*worse

Not far off I reckon.

Quite so, but you cannot allow free speech without such an overabundance of information, else you're just creating some new authoritative body to dictate "truth" from the miasma.

This is also true, but I haven't sussed this out far enough to get into those deeper details.

By all means, I appreciate the input.

I don't know that I'd agree there, but fair enough.

Come again?
That's exactly the sort of commentary I would expect from one of the low-cog masses.
No offense, but would you mind going and watching some Netflix instead of posting in this thread, or on this board for that matter, any further? What am I saying, there's no way you can't take offense to that, is there?
Let me try again… You're too cognitively-limited or ideologically-biased for this conversation, and while I appreciate the attempt to contribute, I don't see how you've actually managed to do so at all except to express you are in support of an adversarial orientation, without any further discussion of the counter-points elucidated regarding that position above. But I thank you for the attempt.

Attached: 8a75fd2c905f8856f6314922285b601c85c74d005a36133e0dc26959743fceb9.jpg (672x910, 57.23K)

Probably my last bump before bed, will check back tomorrow if the thread is still around.

Attached: Tyr_strom.jpg (600x421, 102.45K)

...

Bump

bump

Free speech is as much a tool as censorship dum dum. I gurantee 99% of the anons here know that and that this is just another waste of a thread.

i honestly don't give a fuck about free speech, atm it's just something we should defend because it suits us
if a fascist government ever gets in power, i hope it gets binned fast

Feel free to expand upon that thought. As it stands, you just seem kind of stupid, spouting cryptic nonsense that you think sounds intelligent, but which is actually completely lacking in insight or even a cohesive idea.

IOW: You're saying you prefer an inquisitorial system, but believe it requires a trustworthy authoritative body to act as the arbiter of "truth" in terms of permitted speech.
In that, it would appear we agree; however, I would love to hear your thoughts in the context of the expressed considerations relative to the hazards of the inquisitorial system in this regard (ie, the difficulty in ensuring the authoritative body is not corrupted towards serving self-interests in conflict with national interest).

Attached: 11a630c5d47fadb465b4d4c4acbc0f554488c8c7dcf95fd823676d9eab839a39.jpg (640x480, 249.85K)

Free speech is one of those nice things you can't have in your country when it's infested with jews. They and their minions do nothing but bitch, moan, cry, whine, and complain that whatever we say has to be silenced and censored because their feelings are hurt. Meanwhile they use public airwaves to mock Whites, blame us for all societal ills and preach our genocide as the thing that will bring all brown people unlimited money and kangship. In the future, all speech even slightly to the left will be criminalized. Under actual free speech, we still have the left refusing to respect that and trying to keep theirs while denying ours. Free speech only works when everyone agrees that everyone needs to be allowed a voice. When kikes and commies try to shut people up, that whole system stops working. We'll keep important leftyshit texts like The Communist Manifesto and Saul Alinsky's writings as academic texts to teach the youth why the left can't be allowed a place in society if they want society to continue. Shit like tranny/fag propaganda aimed at children will be publicly destroyed and the authors of such garbage hanged.

Attached: leftistgoals.png (1793x539, 193.67K)

That does seem to be the core of matter, yes.

Very well put sir, very well put!

And how can you possibly have that without a cohesive national state espousing shared interests? You can't.
You can't have 40 million niggers, 70 million spics, 6 million Jews and 200 million Whites living together in one land, all with conflicting interests, and retain freedom of speech as a meaningful policy/ideological position, not without someone being completely fucked/cucked in that you'd be expecting people to allow others to speak against the interests of their group, to serve the interests of a competing group, on the basis of mere principle.
Pure cuckservativism: "I believe in free speech so much, I'm willing to let my enemies speak against me on principle! The truth will out! Good always triumphs over evil! HEY WAIT LET ME GO I DIDN'T COMMIT ANY HATE SPEECH! LEAVE MY WIFE ALONE! Oh wait its racist for me to resist? Alright then, I'll quietly watch… Try not to resist honey, we don't want to be racist."

Their propensity for using the principles of their opposition against them, while espousing no principles themselves (rather, espousing only a desire to win, at any cost in principles), is a fine example in this regard.
How can you have free speech in a situation where one side of the equation disingenuously demands full and unrestricted speech, claims the production and sale of interracial anal-prolapse porn is 'free speech', for themselves, while simultaneously demanding those who oppose them be silenced for hate-speech/wrong-think? You can't, its fucking impossible.
The only outcome in such a scenario is that the ones who act upon principle get beaten to death by those very principles by those who only care about victory.

It's not cryptic just because you are too stupid to piece it together. I am not going to explain shit to you just be happy I wasted two posts on this thread to begin with. And scratch your head while everyone else understands.

If the people have no free speech then it becomes trivially easy for the government to silence the people.
The purpose of the government MUST BE to serve the Volk and the interests of the Volk. Otherwise it is merely tyranny.
The key problem of most "Western" governments today is that they do not serve the Volk and are often not even of the Volk. They are also actively destroying the Volk that they are meant to serve.
(Volk as in a racially and culturally pure and distinct people. This is diametrically opposed to "diversity," "civic nationalism," "multicultism," and "globalism").
In a country that is composed of a unified and healthy Volk free speech both causes no problems (or, at least, few) and is useful for opposing corruption.

So you deny the genetic reality of race and its massive effect on behavior and ability. Of course.
Race denial is genocide.

When the government is in charge of "finding the truth" then the government gets to decide what is true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The scenario of "little in the way of government corruption" is essentially not possible. Does not exist, and never has existed. It might exist in the future, but only among a Volk both genetically and culturally predisposed to honorable and moral behavior.
The constant struggle of "free speech" is preferable to the guaranteed and self-reinforcing corruption of "no free speech."
Furthermore, the reason why "the masses" are vulnerable to "comforting lies" is due to genetic weakness. The cure is first the cultivation of the "spirit of resistance" among the Volk and reestablishment of Volk homelands under Volk governments, then multigenerational eugenics to cultivate genetic strength resulting in well-rounded, insightful, and moral people (who also defend their own Volk and the preservation of its distinctiveness).
Instead, the current ZOG regimes are encouraging dysgenic racemixing and feminism to "dumb down" the masses. They are also using harmful chemicals in the food, water, and medicines to the same ends within the current generations.

Totally the opposite.
"Inquisition" system is 100% long-term corrupted into tyranny of the judges in which the judges, government, and police are a mafia ruling with an iron fist and with total disregard to justice.
"Adversarial" is vulnerable to charismatic liars, but it is also susceptible to charismatic leaders who promote truth and justice. At least with an "adversarial" system the truth has a voice, and a chance.
Furthermore, you certainly have a very low opinion of "the masses." Not all "masses" are the same. This is one of the reasons why Volkism is paramount.

All that I am hearing is "I want White people to be silenced so that White genocide is not opposed."
If a person does not have freedom of speech then they are a slave.
You say a lot of words, but I suspect that you just want people, especially Whites, who disagree with you to be shut up.

Totally disagree.
Liberty for my own Volk is critically important.
Without liberty there is little point to anything.
Now, individuality must be in consonance with the needs of the Volk, but anyone seeking to reduce my people to serfs is the enemy.

Totally disagree.

Calling others stupid is hardly an admirable argumentation tactic.

Totally disagree.
You point out the hazards of having those not of your own Volk within your homeland, but then advocate for punishing your own Volk.
The correct response is separation into racial and ethnic homelands.
I totally agree with specifically teaching the youth Nationalist and Traditionalist values and exposing the poisons of marxism, feminism, and multicultism, though.

Again, the correct solution is separation, not restricting the liberty of White people.

Its cryptic in that it doesn't say anything clear, but merely alludes to something which I cannot divine.
Then you've contributed nothing of value and I won't be sorry to watch you go. Nor will anyone else I wager, but if that's your desire then take care lad.

See:

I question this, because it relies on the perpetuation of a unified and healthy Volk, and I am of the belief that total free speech results in the gradual disintegration thereof, as the consequence of the totality of free speech allowing subversives to speak freely. I've gone into detail on this already and so won't repeat myself further on the matter.

I agree, but you missed a piece of the puzzle there that invalidates your complaint, specifically:
>proponents of the race realism-associated "socio-economic excuse" cope
Race-realism is truth, however, the 'socio-economic excuse' cope that we see wheeled out time and time again by opponents of race-realism, to explain away racial variations in areas such as cognition and propensity toward crimnal violence, is a fine example of the hazards of free speech in the adversarial context.

Yes.
An empty tautology IMHO, and on the other side of it, you have the cognitively-variable masses struggling to discern truth from amidst a miasma of oft-pleasant or comforting lies. Given the circumstances, I find it more likely that a state which services the Volk and which can thereby be trusted to discern "truth" as regards acceptable speech might be established than that the masses will be able to discern "truth" amongst pleasant/comforting lies AND/OR that they will choose to embrace that "truth".
Do you disagree with that sentiment?

It seems to have existed in the Third Reich. Speech was anything but free under the National Socialist regime - speech which was deemed not to harm the Volk was permitted, that which was deemed otherwise was not.
Do you disagree with that sentiment?

IOW: White Europeans existing within homogenous ethnostates and governed by those who espouse an insurrmountable interest in the well-being of the Volk.

I find this a dubious assertion, given this struggle has historically always devolved - from what Ive seen - into dissolution of homogenous populations and cohesive nations, as opposed to maintaining such.
Do you disagree?

That I do not agree with, I would suggest it is merely human nature and even some of the brightest minds I have ever known were extremely susceptible to such rhetoric under the right conditions.
I do not see how you would accomplish such on widespread terms in the face of free speech-enabled subversives and opposition in similar vein. Their honeyed words, toxic though they may be, are too lovely for most to reject, IMHO at least.

I agree, however, I would disagree in terms of your aggressively-eugenic position, but that's really rather irrelevant for this discussion.

Possibly the case.
I do not see how this is any different than the 100% long-term corruption threat extant in the tyrannical scenario you describe in association with the inquisitorial system under your views, nor how you can simultaneously put such faith in the rulers in other avenues while believing them inevitable corrupted in this context.
Would you please elaborate?
I do not agree with that sentiment, in that I see the the enemies having as-much of a voice as the righteous, thus, due to human nature, leading inevitably towards dissolution of the Volk.

I do, in a sense, albeit I am not one of them - my accomplishments and capabilities put me well outside the average within my Volk, and so I cannot help but look upon them as somewhat stunted in majority and prone to self-serving self-deception where the opportunity presents itself.
I agree.
I further agree.

Well then you must not be reading very closely. I'm inclined to suggest that is what you WANT to hear, instead of that being what is being said.
And if a person has freedom of speech, they cannot be a slave? This does not follow.
Yes, after a fashion, I do. I have no interest in allowing my enemies free reign to speech lies to my people - the idea that I DO have an interest in such has, to my eyes, resulted in my country, which holds freedom of speech so dear, being systematically manipulated and deceived to the point wherein very soon, my Volk will simply cease to exist.
Why then, would I argue that the mechanism via which that was achieved ought be promoted further?
You cannot deny - the United States of America is dying, and it is in large part consequential from ideology which could not have been spread in the context of a Volk-focused authoritative body inhibiting the dissemination of that ideology.

I value duty far more than liberty, because without a sense of duty, enslavement - and the loss of liberty - is inevitable.
See: Starship Troopers, "no such nation can endure", pic related.

And by the same token, I would argue that any man who pretends my Volk are not genuinely-closer to serfs in terms of their cognitive ability and mental-equipment to combat subversives than 'Overmen' is naively idealistic to the point of hazard, and thus, while perhaps not my enemy, they are clearly misguided and dangerously so, ala the "truth will out" fallacy, our present circumstances having shown that to be fallacy.

It was not an argumentation tactic, it was a response in the face of absent argumentation on behalf of a nay-saying unnecessarily-hostile anonymous commentator expressing very limited novel insight, who subsequently refused to elucidate upon their ideas any further when so-querried.

And how, exactly, do you accomplish such in the face of your Volk, knowingly or unknowingly, choosing to embrace falsehoods which result in the exact opposite outcome, coupled with ubiquitous maligning of your end-goal on behalf of subversive outsiders within your ranks?

But by the same token, in defending total free speech in the adversarial context, you are by-definition ALSO saying
else you are not genuinely in favor of total free speech.