It is in no doubt that one of the greatest freedoms afforded individuals in most Western nations is the right to free speech. It encapsulates so much in such a short statement. The freedom of thought, of ideas and of the written word. Yet these ideas come into another realm, one often ignored by general free speech advocates. It is that of a binding culture, a conception of community or nationality whereby people actually belong to something, have a voice and an understanding. In modern liberal democracies (not so aptly named), these ideas regularly seem to come into conflict due to government regulation of speech and a lack of a voluntary social contract in unified communities.
The main area I’m looking at when I speak in these terms is England. England as a concept has had a unifying culture for millennia, with a common understanding of language, society and law. Even under the most voluntary of feudal arrangements that have existed, particularly before Alfred’s succession and the Norman invasion, these unifying concepts have been relatively settled, framing themselves over long historical trajectories. Today though, among the native population, there is a yearning for these ideas to return, which have been placed on the guillotine and savagely executed in a short period of time. The primacy of common law, a unifying culture developed by society’s little platoons and the maintenance of English as the main language. However, such ideals have been replaced by government statutes and human rights legislation based on political ideas of how rights work, rather than their natural origin. A unifying culture has been replaced by an idea of enforced communalism through multiculturalism, where all cultures, despite elements of brutality or rampant misogyny, are left unquestioned and unchallenged. This comes down to what can only be described as the development of political correctness, or bureaucratic regulation of speech.
Thus it can be said that real free speech doesn’t actually exist. Instead, supposedly marginalised cultures are allowed to speak whenever and say whatever, but the ability to question, challenge and exclude is de facto outlawed. Now one ethnic group that can be seen to have fallen under the category of marginalised are British Muslims. Within their populace (which it must be said is not unitary or homogenous) there are levels of self-segregation and the creation of communities removed from the larger apparatuses of English culture. Now self-segregation on its own is not necessarily a bad thing. By self-segregation I mean the ability for immigrants to decide where they live and create communities of immigrant-owned businesses and households. In fact early self-segregation eventually leads to better assimilation into the wider populace. However, as I’ve argued previously, the combination of unregulated mass immigration (usually state induced) and the destruction of community and native culture by government in favour of multiculturalism and political correctness has allowed for these communities to split off and marginalise themselves and the native population. In areas such as Luton or Tower Hamlets, this has led to Muslim thuggery and extremism, as well as positioning the native population as voiceless minorities, trapped in circles of high-crime and societal anomie.
What is even worse is when you see that the radical elements of these communities, represented by Islamist mosque leaders and Jihadi supporters such as Anjem Choudary, have in effect a right to say disgusting things which spit on the English native culture and are protected under the guise of free speech. But then the question must be begged, surely the right of the majority to decide (through their freedoms) their culture, society and in-group trump this snivelling concept of ‘free speech’ trumpeted by those who’ve created/facilitated this problem in the first place. The freedom of association is as much a right as the freedom of speech.
But as we know, free speech is a guise, and freedom of association is effectively outlawed, by governments implementing and supporting policies of multicultural hegemony and bureaucratic regulation of speech
So what are the solutions? Well they are encapsulated in the ability of English communities, through common law and democracy, to create their own culture and society so as to fit within recognised conceptions of Englishness. Thus primacy of freedom as guaranteed under our law, the right to freedom of association (which means inclusion and exclusion), the freedom to ostracise those who preach against us and the ability to create a unifying culture. This is where National-Anarchists, such as Troy Southgate, get it right. A community is nothing without a culture, and in the case of England, our little platoons are defined by this wider conception of historical Englishness. This entails then an ability for communities to exclude those who present an existential threat, to prevent the building of Mosques and subsequently to preserve the primacy of the Christian religion in applicable cultural matters and the primacy of secularism in politics and diverse societies. It also means the right to ban the Burqa in public places. Religion is a private matter, and the same goes for religions new to this land. It may be said by some that this infringes on freedom of speech. But a true understanding of what that means, as nestled in ideas of law and culture, would show such views to be void. Freedom of speech cannot be protected if we cannot exclude those who aim to curtail it.
The case study of this essay has had a focus on Muslim integration in the UK. To add something of a rejoinder to those who would accuse me of scapegoating, it is not to say that Muslims as a whole are a problem people. Many if not most integrate well into wider society. I place most of the blame on the current issues of cultural unification on the government, who has simply facilitated the right of Islamist thugs to rule over peaceful Muslim communities, building Mosques and marginalised neighbourhoods which create pockets of areas foreign to England. This would not be possible without enshrining equalities legislation, a national curriculum and multiculturalism. But it cannot be unknown that the integration of Muslim communities has been a major problem for local governments, and the radicalisation of certain Muslims, in many ways ignored by these communities, has been a source of tension with native populaces. Problems such as this are not helped by liberals who defend their free speech while still supporting the erroneous government policies that created them. Under the ideas I have brought forward, peaceful Muslims who want to integrate and maintain their faith privately would have every right to do so, so long as they recognise the primacy of our culture as long as they live on land demarcated as England.
In the end, what I’m calling for is the ability for communities to create their own voluntary social contracts which would allow for freedom of association and the ability to create integrative methods for maintaining a unified culture, surrounded by larger ideas of what makes them who they are. This land is the inheritance of our ancestors, who were English and helped create and continue our English culture. We should have the right exclude those who infringe upon it. This may violate conceptions of free speech, but at the end of the day what is more important. The fallacy of maintaining free speech for those who hate us or want to change us, or the ability to maintain our distinct culture.