Monday, December 28, 2009

Father Christmas

Father Christmas gimme your money, make me some and make it for free. Please be nice, every time you think of me and think of me twice. Father Christmas; take from them all, all from which they have made for me. Father Christmas, leave me alone, now go and find a new place to roam. Father Christmas, I think that this time, I’ll just blame someone else for my crime. Father Christmas, how can you be, when Pelosi is still in front of me? Father Christmas, what do I see right in front of me, how is it that you can be, if you are not gender free. Father Christmas, pass it on, give it to me and I still want it for free. Father Christmas, working hard is just not the life for me. Father Christmas; please send to me, a post modernist for under our tree, I want as far as I can see. Father Christmas, blind me not, as I want my very own Pol Pot. Father Christmas, please send me a star, make it red, as I want my very own Czar. Father Christmas, hide my thoughts, as it may not be the time to think for free. Father Christmas, where is all the glee, are my thoughts really there just for me.

Father Christmas, watch out for progress, with all of its ghost’s clamoring while Lenin boasts. Father Christmas, where is Herr Hegel, when you need him the most, please, please send him he‘ll make a good host. Father Christmas, I want my very own manifesto, complete with Engels and Uncle Karl‘s crescendo. Father Christmas, see that I am safe, and please save me from all systemic risk. Father Christmas, hide the sugar plums, oh silly me, I actually thought that they were really FDA free. Father Christmas; hide me from Pigou, before he betrays us once and for all. Father Christmas, give to our Keynesians, any luxury for under their tree and please do say that they are from me. Father Christmas, how can it be, I want my Mao sitting right next to me. Father Christmas, please send a card to the aristocracy in DC, fill it with glee then pass it to me. Father Christmas; send me a tome, that won‘t confuse me like a Mia Angelo poem. Father Christmas; give me a German for under my tree, how about a Kant and Nietzsche for me. Father Christmas, please do remind me, that the collective is really never for free. Father Christmas, what else can you do, how about a Sophisto smarter than you.

Father Christmas, is it true, that they really care for me as much as you? Father Christmas, when will they send me a check, so I can get out from under this wreck? Father Christmas, I am in a bind, falling further and lagging behind. Father Christmas, save me from gain, please stop me from working insane. Father Christmas; give me my very own world, one that only I can see it for free. Father Christmas, who needs an objective reality, when I can just subtract it from Nietzsche. Father Christmas, why do I bemoan, I do still have property of my own. Father Christmas, give it to all and please protect me from all that Gaul. Father Christmas, take my will, leave me no freedom that I can spill. Father Christmas, as you can see, the list is too long to be just for me. Father Christmas; please take from me, all that I earn individually, give collectively to all for free.

Father Christmas, please Von Bismarck me, give me my own cult of personality. Father Christmas, I am feeling down, can I speak to Woodrow Wilson if he is still in town. Father Christmas, bequeath to me, my very own progressive Hegelian tree. Father Christmas, send me anarchy and I promise to share it with Trotsky, you just wait and see. Father Christmas, do I need to rely on just me, why can’t I have it all for free? Father Christmas, send it all, just give it to me, one and all. Father Christmas; help me to forget, all that is history without any regret. Father Christmas; please do not lock me out, I need a window for Darwin to see out. Father Christmas, where is our exceptionalism, is it the time for a progressive reality. Father Christmas, please send from the mount, a man of intellectual purity and FDR’s clout. Father Christmas, take my self sufficiency and mix it sufficiently all the way out. Father Christmas, as you can see, the holiday is just too much for me. Father Christmas, so much to see, please give good tidings to Stalin for me…

Limited Risk

Common Genius, the American experiment in rational radicalism in the self interest by and for the rights of man with all its’ caveats. Not before or since has there been a unique and constitutionally bonded government; as originally proclaimed, that contains check and balances within the Federal government. Thomas Paine in Dissertations on first principles of government wrote, “It is all times necessary…until right ideas confirm themselves by habit, that we frequently refresh our patriotism by reference to first principles. It is by tracing things back to their original origins that we learn to understand them, and it is by keeping that line and that origin in view that we never forget them.”

Value your freedom and its’ virtues; the American Revolution did not create a template for limited risk and fairness to all. What the sophistos behind the blackboard seem to dismiss is the common thread between opportunity and the citizen. By embracing the principles of the Scottish enlightenment the founders responded to the tyranny of the then current government proxy from Britain. Born from Smith’s Classical model of economics were four standards, thrift, hard work, enlightened self-interest and benevolence toward fellow citizens…you know, virtues. Secondly; government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforce private property rights, engage in certain public works and to defend the nation against aggression and not turn its aggression upon the citizens and to work the public over by institutionalizing risk.

How about free trade, lower taxes, minimal bureaucracy and constitutional restraint. Adam Smith defended the ideas that natural liberty and a self regulating system of competitive free enterprise and limited government would eventual free the world of mercantilism and the heavy handed intervention by the state. Now you statists do realize your heroes of the state with the likes of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Castro ad nauseam, reflects the vacuum of the sophistos’ reality.

To take liberty with in its’ frame work of optimism and to reduce it to a principle of precautionary logic is systematically reducing risk to a method of control and limitation of the natural risk of capitalism. Limitations on risk compound the reason for liberty…devaluing constitutional establishment of the origins of the principle of liberty does not reform the limits of the value of risk. To create a governmental opiate by seducing its’ citizens into a vagabond of the statist derivative in regulating the individuals’ magnum opus, reclaims a path to tyranny and limitless relativism. Mans’ freedom to self-realize without interference from the post modernist leaves one inherently important risk, the rights of man are seldom won by relenting but by the consecration of the will to be free from limited risk of utopian failures.

Slaughter House Sophisto

When does Mao become an example of a political philosophy that one can rely on for inspiration and how does Mother Theresa’s sacrifice in championing the poor, become a political philosophy. The new trumpeter of young minds, his dictator at large Mr. Benito Obama’s own hand picked pickled piper of post modern ideological excess. None other than Anita Dunn…in the truest sense of a sophisto of the highest order, she proclaims that when she is in need of a philosophical pick me up, she reaches for Mr. Slaughter house sophisto himself, the one, the only chairman of the board! Mao Ze Dong, the Chinese `Che, the keeper of liberty, the propaganda polemist himself, the Socrates of sacrifice.

Anita the Dunn made reference in her analogy to Mao’s persistence in removing Chiang Kai Shek, resident imperialist in thanks to the US government the ultimate working class crusher… Sarcasm for you sophistos of Maoist leanings. What did Mao have that he was needed to rescue the peasants? He had Mao as his main interest…now Crusher Shek was no daisy at all. Combining alliances, armies and a centralizing power grab from the resident warlords of the time, a daunting task at that. Even though Chiang Kia Shek had ties to Stalin, he used the alliance with the CCP or the Chinese Communist Party and the Soviets in order to move toward Chinese unification. This comradeship was more cherished by the CCP and the USSR more than General Shek himself.

Perhaps Comrade Dunn was implying that Shek-akahn, Bukharin and the leaders of the CCP plotted with the imperialists, capitalists…not a political ideology…from allowing the peasant uprising in the name of Marxism and egalitarian principles. Taking control of the means of production by first destroying the machinery…sound familiar Obamamanians? Mmm…Mr. Mao or a freer democratic government of Taiwan? Let me think about that one…She implies that Mao the leader of the peasant uprising, a man of peace most always play Janus, was kept from having their emancipation moment. She also implies through some fine sophisto speak that Adolph Shek began a degeneration spiral from the top down…sounds familiar…thereby crushing the middle class that the chairman of the board relied on to push Shek’s armies north and finally to Formosa.

March with Mao; give away the Obama game plan…use the peasants as the objective of your strategy. Promise a political fairness to the middle class, revoke the individual with the state, have your agrarian platform. Bemoan the soullessness of Capitalism, the carnage of the unknowing simpletons that litter their minds with emptiness only waiting for the minimalist to reduce common sense to Pavlovian propaganda.

Far from the statist relying on faith, a moral code, sacrifice, squalor and selflessness, Mother Theresa asks of no one, expects of no one gave a hand of comfort devoid of control and self interest. Her life was an individual composition and a choice of her own free a will free from external factors as the sole source of life guidance. Her manner and deeds were her philosophy…this concept confuses the sophisto as there is nothing to destroy, free from the means of production, far from the self fulfilling creation of their intellectual evolution. This nun was as distant as Einstein’s theory of relativity is to the post modernist relavitivism of the concept of existence less the slaughter house that was the People’s Republic of Mao.

Up Against the Wall

Up against the wall mother fu.ker! It was the call for the radicals inside the halls of education, thus setting the tone for the modern radical; relying on reveille and radicalism to replace liberty with a counter-measure of diversion. The template for change was born, a new age of education and social response. A new beatnik, a world citizen, a cosmic Marxist…a civil rights liberator and an artful diversionary; a diversionary culture clash and its rage fueled by self loathing and dialectic muses from the 19th century Ecotopian Darwinians of the soft sciences. From Ricardo’s Equivalence to Bentham’s, (ad- verecundiam,) Fallacy of Artful Diversion; in order to divert and rely on an incomplete argument, to convey, that every mode of the opposition is completely hopeless…

Take Marx for instance, and the fallacy of confusion; begging the question, in order to speak of conduct, behavior, intention or motive of your argument without a neutral under liner for this or that man. An insightful sophisto would extract this dictum from that spectrum of its meaning, in order to reply eureka! I must have been blind to my existential essence of myself, as so pre-elevated, even in my slumber to not have known that it is. My man (eulogistic) to reverie, (dyslogistic) your man I have contempt.

Self interest; the sophistos know no other, than the utilitarian fallacy that every political measure is proposed to deliver the greatest benefit to the greatest number in mass. Self regarding interest is paramount far and above that of social interest. Here in lies the fallacy of the Marxist, the collective interest is the self interest of the few whom select the interest at the expense of the collective. There are a few examples in small circles of self interest as in war, combat to be precise, that one may sacrifice their self interest for the collective, but on a grand scale, not a chance.

Self interest is the catalyst for survival, liberty is the platform for freedom and natural rights are essential for the individual. The fallacy of creative understanding and its effects on morality and ethics; the more abstract the concept the higher probability that it is a fallacy. Gun control saves lives, fallacy, to regulate self preservation in order to preserve a theory based on an abstract concept, that an armed citizen is a dangerous problem, is a governmental fallacy without statistical merit, it is a political fallacy.

In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Cruickshank, in 1876, in an attempt to politicize a case stemming from a violation of the 1870 Force Act. In here lies the political fallacy. Today’s regulatory antagonists use this as a diversion of the historical events of the 1873 Colfax Parish, Louisiana uprising of the freedmen, a reference specifically of black freedmen. By injecting race or the bias of, into the argument, in that the freedmen that were armed and exercising their first amendment right, were unlawfully gun downed in a hail of gunfire by white separatists exercising their second amendment rights, thus to lawfully end the perceived insurrection. It was argued that the use of force by the defendants, in that it was a lawful exercise of their constitutional rights to use the second amendment in order to lawfully put down an insurrection was justified. The court ruled on several issues; that the first amendment was not intended to limit the states powers of regulating their own citizens and that the second amendment has no other use other than to limit the powers of the federal government.

Yet, this is another example of exercising an ideology based on a statist platform, in the attempt to dismiss certain aspects of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution, as nothing more than an obstacle to a progressive and ever an expanding of the Platonic epistemological theories to government.

Dialectical regulation at the expense of our contracts is another political fallacy, by expanding the commerce clause, in order to promote regulatory fascism and set the bench mark for today’s Congress, and to revisit the New Deal’s punitive statist judicial parlors of the National Recovery Act of 1933. Hugh S. Johnson was a prominent author of the NRA; for you sophistos, it is not the National Rifle Association. Johnson a former general; he used the model of Italian fascism to draw on as a popular progressive. The right police statist for the job; an example is the Schechter Poultry case in NY, that led to the conviction of 8 for conspiring to sell an unfit chicken and two uninspected ones. Finally, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that the act was unconstitutional and exceeded Congress’s enforcement of the Commerce Clause and in turn it granted too much executive power.

Radical wistfulness, with its artful diversions, in so anointing students in the science of intellect; socializing change and replacing common sense with the collective individual fallacy. Trading empirical evidence for the mad hatters of the classrooms, the champions of Mao, the defenders of Marx, clanging for Che’ and the to the sophisto drinkers of socially responsible free trade coffee. When is enough good enough, when liberty and freedom are secondary to revolution; as the relative realists take notes on supplemental adjuncts to the Constitution?

Up against the wall can be heard in today’s executive office; in it’s dealings with the banks that received TARP funds and the auto industry’s acceptance of government loans. The rational of such a promotion of political self interests for the benefit in the social interest, is nothing short of collectivism re-appropriated. Following the Hegelian world of mankind’s evolution to perfection and Marx’s of controlling the means of production, by first dismantling and destroying its machinery. It is a journey plagued with empirical evidence that points to the contrary. As Herbert Spencer so eloquently stated in his essay; From Freedom and Bondage, “for as fast as the regime of contract is discarded, the regime of status is of necessity adopted. As fast as voluntary cooperation is abandoned, compulsory cooperation must be substituted. Some kind of organization of labor must have; and if is not that which arises by agreement under free cooperation, it must be that which is imposed by authority.”

Tea Party

The aroma of Hegel’s huckleberry, President Obama extends the tea leaf of his Alma Mata, King George III. In an effort to sail into the future on the existential express, the White House merchant of change is summoning the ghost of Jacob Marley’s merchantilian England. Once again, the torch bearer of Saul Alinsky, the south side shuffle changes the notes on an old tune. In crisis act accordingly, put existence before essence, absolute relativity before Don Quixote’s horse.

Do you put the water before the tea or the tea before the water? William James stated, “The truth of a statement lies in its practical consequences.” Epistemological pragmatism, perhaps, maybe, but when does choosing ones truth based on what it will accomplish in practice, relate to empiricism. What are you talking about, as some might say, what does this all mean, in a pragmatic existential way? It is assumed that Keynesian economic patterns, empirically speaking, are looked at as a solution for the neoclassic pragmatic verification system, that all solutions are the same for any and all economic uncertainties.

Remember Irving Fisher, the Greenspan of the 1920s, he likened market forces as the changing velocity in monetary policy could indeed be a factor in producing artificial highs and lows in the markets. He wrote of these possibilities in his work entitled, “The purchasing power of money,” in 1911. Enjoying his ride to prosperity, he boldly predicted in 1929, that the stock market had reached a permanent perch upon the shoulders of Zeus, so to speak. Instead, the market tumbled from Olympus, taking what is known today, as a deflationary spiral. Fisher did compose a theory on debt-deflation in 1933 and wrote an article about it in Econometrica, essentially adding to the then debate on the empirical need for the gold standard for currency.

Fisher, led the way for Keynes to insert some of his ideas into Keynes’s format for government intervention in to the markets of the 1930s, in doing so; this laid the foundation for today’s monetary economic practices. Let us for a moment, return to how epistemology is homogenized into the political policies of the economic reigns of capitalism. Kant stated in his critique on reason, that reason has two components, the analytic and synthetic. Making statements based on reason in of its existence, is analytic and basing reason with a sensory objectiveness of the world around us, would be synthetic in nature.

In complete compliance with the ideas of the thinker; that timed his walks to the rhythm of his neighbor’s clocks. It would seem to believe, that the economic risk takers have based their plan on a theory, that more control of monetary policy, is above the law. Natural law, collectively the experts in cause and effect, will indeed cause an effect by trying to implement a plan in Kant’s words, a priori or an analytical statement, a plan is a plan a perfect plan based on the plan. Instead of a posteriori or synthetic statement, that in the course of eighty years, history has observed that confusing the natural risks inherent in the markets, and instilling government policies that reduce the natural arc of the laffer curve, tend to stifle the flow of capital into longer Keynesian curves.

Politicizing economics in order to benefit the middle class and thereby tending to the basic monetary needs of the masses, more overly the American public is a recipe for Hegel’s huckleberry. So soothing in its allure, draped in fairness and sprinkled with utopian aftertastes. Disguised as optimism and hope, it fills the empty glass of change, packaged as progress, it is chained to Marley’s woes and Marx’s ramblings of a new proletariat on the shining hills of collective individualism.

Progress; there is no stinking progress in such a collective consensus, it is more like Plato’s Republic, where such discussion of what to do with the masses whom are ignorant and wanting, is not a concern of the elitist thinker of soft science. Inequality is the voice of the town crier, renouncing individual responsibility and self reliance for the dream of “designer babies” a generation or two away from compliance and order.

It is now tea time, a time for a sip along the Left Bank, so relax and float down stream ever changing and dialectical. Change instead of initiative, lay down your liberty for peace, and give up your individualism for the clanging of conformity, trade morality for relevance, cast away common sense for Alice’s wonderland and drink the wine of a Teutonic Twit, cloaked in progress and hope for all. Long live the king, the saint of deliverance, the piranha of Platonic platitudes. Here lies George III, as it is time for tea, just George and me.


The Sophistos are celebrating their victory lap while simultaneously claiming that the king is dead. As Shopistos are saturated with the desire to see reform in action from their Cromwelleon leader, Lord Protector of America, while his hemlock cascades with in the promises of change. Obama I revised the notion that the Constitution does provide the constitutionality of a National Covenant of tax payers religiously giving to the community chest. Congress has devalued capitalism's inherent risks of financial lending principles and investing capital without sophisticated equations, instead it created a mandate of quantitive economic slating of the market to push the risks of an artificial financial intelligence.

Central financial scrabble, ergo, scrutinizing the inherent risk with the infusion of tax dollars that beguiles the public’s trust as congress steals away its accountability to the people. Lead by Obama I and his pretensions to absolutism, the public is being duped by an ideology of crisis, collectivism and fear. Relying on soft serve pragmatism, Obama I and his parliament reinstate the theoretical maxims of the German enlightenment.

Nietzsche meets Obama, estranged from natural law as a man who has reached his critical point in his duality. The Lord Protector’s scientific moral creationism enlightenment movement, now with the urge to dominate and master, thorough and transcending the sanctum of moral transcendence by creating morals. America’s community activist has embraced Darwinian principles and adds to the death of religious underpinnings in his quest to move metaphysical morality to the stage of his constructive works and to discover the will to power.

His style of character and will to manage the future by reorganizing duplicity in dignity with Nietzsche’s Superman in order to experience immense and protracted meaning in the meaningless world of the common man. Our Lord Protector shall proclaim throughout the land that excess leads to ignorance and want. The reformer promises to master the difficulty of existence, and give meaning to our lives and restore hope and transparency of the Superman and the American way.

Constructing hope from fear, the Lord Protector shall define the ideal man's leader of leaders as he projects the future of a new morality in conceptual government assistance. Pay your penance while Obama I becomes the ideal man, with his sublimation of ideas as he overcomes his self coronation. When the ideal man achieves his self overcoming then he shall bask in a wave of creative energy, in order to propel the ideal man into his justification of reality, his reality, his cult of personality, his reformation…

Faurisson v. France- The Case Against Free Speech

Our future president, and world leader, has been supremely outspoken about is fondness of Europe (France), World Government (EU and the UN) and Political Correctness (Anti Free-Speech). This is a case study about the implications of political correctness and world government on free speech. This article will show that there is no international support for freedom of speech, one we start taking it away from out nation it is gone forever. The case concerns a man who is fined for expressing his opinion. The case is tested at multiple instances and is decided as fair and prudent. This is not an article supporting revisionism, this is an article that shows what the future can look like for ordinary Americans one week from now. It is free to anyone to speculate about what will be illegal to criticize after the election. . . . Hamas? Weathermen Underground? Ayres? The Government? In a free society, the society punishes moronic statements, not the Governmetn or The UN. This is a warning about what can happen when Jurists and the Government gets to decide what we can say, this is what will happen when Judge Kennedy and King Hussein decides what is moral and correct. Not that there is no secret police or death squads in this analysis just a simple cash penalty on personal opinion. . . . Free $peech i$ not free. . . Sources are included for anyone who cares about freedom.

The central character in the case is a man named Robert Faurisson, who is a well known revisionist.

The case deals with Faurissons complaint against the French government pertaining to its legal system, mainly the legality of the Gaysott Act.

The Gaysott Act was taken into practice 13 July 1990, and seeks to minimize violence or other harmful acts against people based on “ethnic group, nationality, race or religion”.# The applicable part of the Gaysott act for this case is the prohibition of “publication of ideas contesting the existence of the crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany during World War II defined in the appendix to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945.”#

The case takes its start in an article in the magazine Choc du Mois which was published in September 1990. In the magazine, Faurisson displays his believes regarding the holocaust.
"... No one will have me admit that two plus two make five, that the earth is flat, or that the Nuremberg Tribunal was infallible. I have excellent reasons not to believe in this policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chamber ..."
"I would wish to see that 100 per cent of all French citizens realize that the myth of the gas chambers is a dishonest fabrication ('est une gredinerie'), endorsed by the victorious powers of Nuremberg in 1945-46 and officialized on 14 July 1990 by the current French Government, with the approval of the 'court historians'".#

These quotes caused much anger among the readers and a number of survivors of World War 2 pressed charges against Faurisson and the author of the article.

The French Tribunal de Grande Instance of Cusse decided that Faurison and the author where guilty of "contestation de crimes contre l'humanité“according to the Gaysott Act. The two defendants were sentenced to pay a fine of 326 832 Franc.#

The two defendants later appealed the sentence to appellate court in Paris which resulted in an increased fine. The court held that the sentence is applicable to present European Union (EU) law, namely articles 6 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHRFF).# One should point out that EU law is supranational, as decided by the van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration case.# This fact should be contrasted with the fact that decisions in the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) are not binding.#

The case was brought to the UNHRC in which Faurisson refused to appear for hearings because of financial difficulties. Faurisson has, however, made the claim that his right to freedom of speech has been violated by the Gaysott Act.#

Faurissons claim regarding his right to freedom of speech is backed by numerous international documents and conventions, also a number of moral-philosophical claims can be made in support of Faurissons argument.

Article 18 and 19 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) guarantees an individuals´ right to freedom of thought, conscience opinion and expression.# Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) makes references to the same rights in articles 18 and 19.#
One can clearly see that there is a strong defense for freedom of speech in international law, and that this right shows a clear sign of universalisation as argued by Eide.# When studying the core documents regarding human rights, one can easily see that freedom of speech is a part of most of these documents. One can draw the conclusion that framers of international law has believed that freedom of speech is an essential human right.

Further readings show that freedom of speech has always been seen as one of the core rights in a liberal democratic society.# Proponents of liberal rights such as John Stuart Mill argue that freedom of speech is important not only for individual freedom, but also for societal and intellectual development.# Furthermore, experts of human rights argue that limits to freedom of speech and freedom of the press is a common political tool used by dictators and tyrants.# One can therefore see that there are strong risks associated with limitations on freedom of speech, and that freedom of speech fills many important functions in a society.

Mills argues that the only limitation on freedom of speech should be made when a speech causes direct harm to an individual or group of individuals.# One can clearly see that Faurisson does not propose any physical attacks on people in his statements. The statements are therefore not strong enough to be rendered illegal; the Gaysott Act is in this case inconsistent with a Millsean analysis of free speech.

Finally, it is commonly understood that it is the responsibility of the national government to uphold human rights.# One may make the argument that France´s limitations on freedom of speech might be unlawful and that they might fail to follow their obligations to uphold human rights.

However a close examination of the case supporting the Gaysott Act has to be made to make a sound judgment on the fairness of the Gaysott Act.

Limitations on freedom of speech are often frowned upon by the international community, but there are several instances in which certain restrictions can be applied on a individuals´ freedom of speech. One can actually see that there are more clauses limiting freedom of speech than there are clauses supporting it.

France argues that article 5(1), of the ICCPR gives them the right to suspend some of Faurissons rights for the purpose of protection of the rights of others.# France further argues that article 17 of the ECHRFF gives them similar rights as set out in the ICCPR.#

Further references are made to “article 26 and in particular article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant, and International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; under article 4 of this Convention.” #One could make the claim, in this case, that the ICERD includes articles which supports free speech, most notably article 5.# It would however feel counterproductive considering that the main point of the convention is to avoid racist sentiments.#
Paragraph 2 of article 29 of the UDHR states that one’s freedoms can only be limited by national law and “due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others”.# One can thereof see that the early framers of humanitarian law laid out the framework for limitations of free speech and expression when it threatened public order or impeded on peoples freedoms. The relatively lose wording of these articles gives states plenty of leeway when it comes to implement restrictions of freedom of speech.#

Another key document for the analysis of freedom of speech and its relationship with the Gayssot Act is the ICCPR. The ICCPR, in article 19(3) (b), points out that freedom of speech can be infringed upon if it threatens “public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals”.# Here, one can yet again see the reference to morals in a legal argument. A natural way to analyze references to immeasurable objects such as morals would be to consult philosophy.

The moral argument shows an extension from what was earlier argued by Mill and his harm principle. While the harm principle only limits speech that cause direct harm to individuals, legal scholars’ such as Joel Finberg argue this is not enough. Feinberg argues that an offence principle needs to be applied in some cases of public speech or expression. The judgment in this case should “have a basis in the supposed offensiveness of the behavior rather than the harm that is caused”.# Feinberg points out that intent and avoidability becomes key issues when following the offence principle. A statement should be criminalized if it is made simply to provoke the people hearing it, but Freedom of expression cannot be infringed upon if the message can easily be avoided.

The central argument regarding the Gaysott Act is in this case if the message was offensive because Holocaust denial is no doubt harmful. One can also make the argument that the strong words of Faurisson were made with the intent of provoking some readers.

If one follows the thinking of Feinberg, and judge upon intent, a whole new path of legal arguments follows. Many articles of the core conventions allow for a liberal usage of the clauses limiting freedom of speech. Starting with the ICCPR and article 17(1) which states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation“. One can clearly see that Faurissons comments can be seen as an intended attack on the honor and reputation of many holocaust survivors. Paragraph 2 of the above article states that “Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. “ One can now see that the Gaysott article is applicable with lawful interferences on freedom of speech if one applies the offence principle.

A serious warning against moral judgments should however be made. A problem with judgment based upon intent or morals is that a message will only be judged by a person who is offended by it. It is very hard judge intent or morals on an objective basis.#

One might, therefore, end up in a situation where all sorts of questioning of norms become a legal labyrinth in which someone is always offended. Jack Donelly supports this argument and further points out that freedom of speech includes no moral duties not to spread lies or deceit.# This is according to Donelly prohibited by other laws that are there to protect individuals from the consequences of free speech.# Donelly argues a strong point for modest limitation on freedom of speech since much of the byproducts of freedom of speech such as violence and in this case genocide is already outlawed.#

It is, although, safe to point out that a defense of moral judgments of human rights is easy to find. Well known scholars such as Jurgen Habermas describes human rights as “Janus faced” and points out that human rights have both a moral and a legal aspect. This shows that one has to leave room for some moral arguments.# This argument furthers the states right to make judgments based on morality.

Another interesting note regarding moral judgments is that Freeman points out that the UN strived to avoid philosophical arguments in humanitarian law in all cases but the cases referring to the atrocities committed by the Nazis.#

Another plausible argument for the correctness of the Gaysott Act is that it is compatible with the goal of the UDHR, which was to prevent a repetition of the atrocities committed by the Nazis during the World War 2. A literal interpretation of this statement shows that the Gaysott Act and the UDHR have the same goal, which ads credibility to the Gaysot Act.#

There are many arguments supporting the limitations of freedom of speech, as argued in the Gayssott Act, which are further supported by the decision of the UNHRC. Also, Eide points out that all forms of hate speech must be limited by the national government.#

The committee made clear that “Any restriction on the right to freedom of expression must cumulatively meet the following conditions: it must be provided by law, it must address one of the aims set out in paragraph 3 (a) and (b) of article 19, and must be necessary to achieve a legitimate purpose.”# The committee found that the action taken by France fulfilled the above demands and was both lawful and necessary. It should, however, be mentioned that several judges contested the decision and pointed out that the Gaysott Act was not clear enough and could be too “loosely interpreted”. #

The final decision by the committee is a seemingly ideal introduction to the concluding arguments regarding the Gaysott Act and its infringement on freedom of speech. There are an overwhelming number of documents regarding the legal and moral importance of freedom of speech. Many of the core-conventions regarding human rights include clauses regarding the importance of freedom of speech. Furthermore, many thinkers and founders of liberal theory such as Mill consider freedom of speech a prerequisite for a liberal democracy.

However, a closer look at most international documents concerning freedom of speech shows that states have included examples of rightful discrimination of freedom of speech.# The legal climate in these documents gives states´ adequate rights to impede on freedom of speech to save public order or morals. One can see that it is hard to measure these words in a substantive manner, which gives states even more room to manipulate freedom of speech laws to fit their needs. The Gaysott Act represents such a manipulation. The Gaysott Act has been publicly criticized and the hearings in front of the UNHRC proved a valuable test for this act. Both independent research in this paper and the UNHRC came to the same conclusion that the Gaysott Act is within the framework of freedom of speech.

Donnelly, Jack. Universal Human Rights in Theory and practice (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 2003).
Eide, Asbjörn (nd) Making Human Rights Universal: Achievements and Prospects.
Freeman, Michael, Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2002).
Hedlund Thulin, Kristina, Lika i värde och rättigheter: om mänskliga rättigheter (Stockholm: Norstedts juridik 2004).
O'Rourke K. C., John Stuart Mill and Freedom of Expression: The Genesis of a Theory (London: Routledge, 2001).
Thomas, Mark, "When It Comes to Freedom of Speech We Are Prepared to Defend Only Those Threatened Ideas That We Agree With," New Statesman, December 19, 2005. rpoject/humanrightscasesandmaterials/cases/internationalcases/humanrightscommittee/nr/267


Reason is a term used freely in conversation, along with rational, rationalization and now almost a cliché, do the right thing. What is the right thing and how do we rationalize that reason and use it to make our point. What is this right thing, to some it is an abstract concept embraced by the idealist, a collective rightness, self rightness and its angry cousin, self righteousness.

Backed by popular thought and demand, do the right thing is thrown about on a myriad of topics. Pay your fair share of taxes, be patriotic and do the right thing as stated by Senator Biden, he himself almost a progressive collectivist. This concept is not new to our country and with its roots in the Woodrow Wilson ideology of what is right for America, his Platonic Republic framed as a progressive national movement in America to parallel Europe’s 19th century nationalist wars in concept. A collective lockstep of ideological framework, and with the assistance of organizations such as, the War Industries Board, run by Bernard Baruch, a social financial engineer and controlling figure of economic mobilization with legal powers and he made many of those decisions free from recommendations, sounds like Federal progression into free market industry. Interesting, considering that he ran an investment firm and refused to be a part of any other financial firm on Wall street and in turn he was considered a lone wolf on Wall street, and in turn he acted like an individual and capitalist. Wilson during World War I was the central figure in this wars planning phase in operating within the framework of the war industry and often Mussolini like in ruling with an iron fist. His plan was to run the war industries completely and within the oversight of the WIB and with Baruch, now a progressive Hegelian at the helm.

Sound familiar, the current financial fiasco, no thanks to Congress as the new fairness revolutionaries of the secular causation and effective dialectical materialists, have landed the financial markets on their proverbial heads, and shaking the free market system to its foundation. This economic “fairness doctrine” that spawned from the 1977 Community Revitalization Act has done nothing as intended, but shore up the hot rails of greed and idealistic opportunity, that is devoid of any pragmatic historical references that benefit the markets basic instincts to fluctuate within reason. New Deal tactics and reformation should not fly in the face of reason; good rationalized reason that is full of practical reason, such as less Federal Government and more Adam Smith with a touch of market regulation, as we can agree that laissez faire is not everywhere, nor is it likely to return under current economic philosophy. Unless Ricardoian thought on his “Law of Rent” and in turn giving to Marx’s theory on exploitation of labor, is pronounced dead and gone with his ideological corpse given to academia to render.

Leave the markets for the free, secure and ethical, let the rugged individualism of this country move obstacles and prolong the long standing principles of the classical model of Smith’s magnum opus. We need more individual responsibility, not more economic pseudo Keynesian propaganda, but more referrals to history that works in conjunction with ethics and morals. As George Washington stated, “we have abundant reason to rejoice, that in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship god according to the dictates of his own heart.” The translation, ethics and morals have a basis in reason and truth; our nation based its truths in natural law, natural rights given to all men, based on the rational, that reason based truths are the truths that should be self evident and not self destructing.

The world does not need trickle down ideology, but limited influence from the 19th century German enlightenment, the vehicle for the French secular movement, spawned by Robespierre and his reformation propagandists, thus trading monarchy for tyranny. It is that simple, as the historical references are long and painful. Now, take a deep collective breath you free radical thinkers of your self proclaimed age of enlightenment, and rejoice that you are still free, constitutionally free, individually free, to do the right thing.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

The Sophisto Idea...

Sophisto Survivor is in essence a child of radical parents of the 1960s, regardless of the location in the world. In my case it began in 1966 in the San Francisco bay area, with a family history of Italian fascism and Marxist ideology, I found myself in a dichotomy caught between Das Capital and reality. At six, I had a new uncle, Karl Marx, along with the usual suspects. Engles, DeLeon, Ricardo and a supporting cast to be named later, considered by many in the movement as the best minds in the Marxist household. I have seen first hand the Sophisto movement with its unproven ideas and rhetoric, dismissing the intelligence of the common citizen as a nuisance and all the while convincing themselves as champions of the working man. From Synanon to the SLA manifesto, lays the pulse of Dr. Marx PhD. This site provides a forum for all recovering children of sophistos; the time is now for ending the alienation from your thoughts and to once again redefine your identity and not someone else’s ideas. Free as you feel to tell your stories, social commentary, turning points and share what you may, but most importantly, have some fun and hold on for the big trip…