Diverse Societies Crush Freedom
Don’t take my word for it. Just listen to this Aussie politician say it.
It’s rare for politicians to offer candor to the public. But one Australian politician finally delivered an honest statement to his constituents, and it should disturb people around the world.
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns is a strong advocate of Australia’s new draconian hate speech laws. Passed in light of Nazi hysteria, the legislation makes “hate speech” crimes–which can include displaying certain symbols or gestures–punishable up to two years in jail. Minns defended the law this week with a frank admission about why he thinks Australia needs such tyrannical measures.
“I recognize and I fully said from the beginning, we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community and have people live in peace,” he proclaimed at a press conference.
As they say, there’s a lot going on here. Minns implies Australia is far more diverse than America, which is apparently a homogenous country. Australia is in fact significantly less diverse than America. It’s less than 30 percent non-white while America is nearly 43 percent non-white. It only recently became multicultural while America has had a large black population since the beginning. It’s an idiotic assumption.
Regardless of his distorted view of America, Minns did reveal an important truth. As western societies become more diverse, they lose their freedom. Leaders worry about conflicts between the different groups, so they pass laws to limit what the people can say. Social harmony justifies the authoritarianism. But these countries don’t even get the social harmony. Crime rises and hostility towards the majority population increases. These laws only penalize whites who dare to speak out about these problems. Non-whites who denigrate Australia’s founders or revel in anti-white hysterics need not worry about punishment. Hate speech laws don’t apply to them.
It is noteworthy that western leaders would admit that diversity means less freedom. Often, they claim it makes their countries freer and more democratic. Germany defends its anti-speech laws on the basis that it’s necessary to protect democracy. Those who make “offensive” posts allegedly threaten the freedom of everyone else and the government is right to arrest them. This is an obviously wrong way of thinking, but it at least keeps up the notion of a free country. Minns completely dispenses with that in favor of multiculturalism. I doubt Australians prefer multiculturalism over freedom, but their leaders sure do.
Outside the U.S., the Anglosphere is a nightmare for civil liberties. During COVID, Australia implemented one of the most insane lockdown regimens. Citizens faced arrest just for walking outside their homes and government officials told Aussies to cut down on conversations to stop the spread. The draconian measures inspired riots by the public, but the government never apologized for enforcing tyranny. The stringent lockdown laws showed that Australia wouldn’t even respect basic human needs if the imagined common good overrode them. It’s hard to denounce Chinese communism when western democracies implement the same measures.
Canada imposed similar measures in response to COVID. When truckers protested these measures, the state treated them as terrorists and charged them with serious crimes. Canada has also proposed an Orwellian expansion to its hate speech laws. These laws would specifically go after online speech and punish offenders with possible fines up to $50,000 and even the possibility of a lifetime sentence in jail. Canada’s liberal government said all of this was necessary to safeguard children.
The UK is notorious for locking up Britons for things they say on Facebook. When Brits aggressively demonstrated last year after a black terrorist stabbed three girls to death, the government moved heaven and earth to find every single person involved. Some were arrested for saying anti-immigration slogans in public. Many were arrested simply for posting support for the demonstrations on social media. The British government’s answer to the growing problem of migrant crime is to punish anyone who notices it. This won’t make London’s rising knife crimes disappear, but it will assure the politicians that the people are under control.
Despite America’s diversity, we still have free speech. The things Americans post on X every day would get them arrested in other countries. We can criticize mass immigration, call for mass deportations, and notice who commits the majority of murders all without the fear of police breaking down our door. It’s a real gift we have.
Some right-wingers think the Constitution and our freedoms are stupid and should be discarded. They imagine they can create a right-wing authoritarian order that will act on the behalf of a common good as interpreted by online autists. This has zero chance of happening. No one wants this besides the autists themselves–and, based on their constant flame wars among themselves, they can’t even agree on a common good. If America decided to cast off traditional interpretations of the Constitution in favor of serving the common good, the Left would define that principle. Their control of academia, media, and the elite law world grants them the moral power to determine what would be the common good. Under this framework, America would turn into Canada rather than into an integralist monarchy.
Americans prize liberty and freedom. The overemphasis on these values may annoy right-wingers, but these values make America a much better place to live than the rest of the Anglosphere. Thanks to the Constitution and America’s obsession with liberty, we have gun rights, free speech, and more resistance to draconian measures such as the COVID lockdowns. It also allows us to challenge the Great Replacement while the rest of the Anglosphere arrests those who dare mention it.
As Australia, Canada, and the UK become more diverse, they will become even less free. Just take Chris Minns’s word for it.
Singapore is a good example. A lot of right wingers worship Singapore but it is essentially a one-party authoritarian state. To keep race relations calm they have ethnic quotas in apartment buildings, colleges, government positions, and hate speech laws. A lot of people point to Singapore as a multicultural success, but it really is only manageable due to its strict authoritarianism. The only positive thing about Singaporean style leadership is the hate speech laws would apply equally to all people and all forms of hate even against the majority would be taken seriously. However, I still don't think that's a great system.
In a multiracial society everyone walks on eggshells and must watch their tongue. Or rather, white people must walk on eggshells while everyone else can pretty much say what they want about white people as long as they don't criticize Jews and Israel. For years libertarians, liberals and even some cuckservatives told us that mass immigration leads to greater wealth and freedom but anyone with a brain knows that's a lie.
In America it's organized Jewish groups like the ADL who pose the greatest threat to the 1st amendment with their pressuring of large companies like Amazon and platforms to censor or ban so called anti-semitism and pro-white and anti-immigrant, anti-multiracialist points of view.
Shockingly it's Trump and the GOP who are making the first attempts to ban political viewpoints by banning so called anti-semitic viewpoints on college campuses.