Ken Loach's Wonderful Films Show How Danger Lies Ahead When Activists Who Fear the Working Class WRONGLY Defend the RIGHT of Oppressors to Use Speech to Oppress
The billionaires hope activists will keep fearing the working class and thus keep opposing its right to do whatever it takes to stop oppressors from oppressing.
Ken Loach directed a wonderful film, “The Wind that Shakes the Barley.” Set during the Irish War of Independence (1919–1921) and the Irish Civil War (1922–1923), the film illustrates how people who initially seem to be on the same side in a major conflict, despite disagreeing over an issue that seems minor and academic, end up shooting at each other because of their disagreement over what they wrongly thought was a minor issue but turned out to be a HUGE issue.
Similarly, Ken Loach’s also wonderful film, Land and Freedom, that takes place during the 1936-9 Spanish Civil War, illustrates the same point.
Here’s why I strongly urge you to watch these films.
There is a disagreement among activists, in groups I am a part of, over an issue that seems to many of the activists to be minor and academic. But I know that people who disagree on this issue have in the past and will very likely in the future end up shooting at each other.
The issue in this case is whether oppressors have the right to use speech to oppress. I say no they do not. Many other activists have told me that I am wrong.
Specifically I have encountered disagreements with my recent Substack posts on this issue:
In these posts I have argued that oppressors have no RIGHT to use speech to oppress. Note that saying an oppressor has the RIGHT to use speech to oppress is the same as saying that nobody has the right to stop an oppressor from using speech to oppress even when the circumstances are such that doing so would in fact be wiser (from the point of view of ending oppression) than just trying to refute it.
Some people have told me I am wrong and that oppressors do in fact have a right to use speech to oppress. The people who disagree with me typically say, “You’re wrong because X” where X is some totally irrelevant fact, the irrelevance of which means their argument is specious. Here are some examples of their irrelevant X facts:
It may be wise under the specific circumstances to refute the oppressive speech instead of trying to forcibly censor it, since the former would result in more opposition to it than the latter.
Sometimes it’s hard to tell if a specific case of speech is oppressive or not.
There’s no reliable authority to tell us what is or is not oppressive.
Oppressors, or the government, could say, “Well, if oppressors don’t have the right to use speech for an oppressive purpose, then you don’t have the right to use speech for your anti-oppression purpose.”
If you repress an oppressor’s free speech that hateful energy does not go away and it could end up being expressed by killing people.
These X facts are irrelevant because:
Depending upon the specific circumstances, it may or may not be wiser to forcibly prevent oppressive speech rather than try merely to refute it; the choice is a judgment call. But it requires a judgement, which is very different from saying “No judgement is required at all because the oppressor has a RIGHT to use speech to oppress REGARDLESS of whether it is wiser or not to censor it,” right?
Sometimes it’s hard to tell if a knife is being used to murder somebody, but that doesn’t mean there is a right to use a knife to murder somebody, does it?
There’s no reliable authority to tell us what is just and what is unjust, but that doesn’t mean people have a right to do unjust things, does it?
A murderer could say anything, including “Well, if you don’t let me kill this person then you have no right to kill in self-defense”; but that does not mean a murderer has a right to murder, does it?
If you forcibly stop a murderer from murdering someone that hateful energy does not go away and could end up being expressed by killing someone. So what? This does not mean a murderer has a right to murder, does it?
It behooves all of us to think clearly and avoid specious arguments to decide whether or not we think oppressors have a right to use speech to oppress. The day may come when people who disagree on this issue end up shooting at each other. My Substack articles linked to above are intended to help you think clearly about this question. I hope you read them and give them a lot of thought.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of good and decent people say, without hesitation, “No! Oppressors have no right to do ANYTHING to oppress, including using speech.”
Free speech for Nazis?
The Freedom of Speech principle—which is a bogus one!—says that in the days of Nazi Germany good people had no right to forcibly prevent the Nazis from publishing the antisemitic propaganda that aimed to make Germans view Jews as a mortal enemy that had to be eliminated. I’m referring to propaganda—mere speech with no advocacy of violence, mind you!—such as the following excerpt from more similar stuff online here:
Had you been on the scene back then when good people stormed the publishing house that printed such propaganda that justified this:
would you have said to these good people, “No! Stop! You are violating the Freedom of Speech that this Nazi publisher has and deserves to have. Let him publish all he wants! Then disagree with what he publishes.”
Uh?
Why do activists use specious arguments to defend the right of oppressors to use speech to oppress?
The answer to this question is, I believe, fear—fear of the working class. Here’s why.
I write about this problem here, where I discuss the anti-working class elitism of far too many activists. I think many activists fear the working class. I think many activists fear what working class people would do if they “had permission” to forcibly stop oppressors from using speech to oppress. Because many activists wrongly believe that working class people are brainwashed into supporting the unjust status quo, these activists fear that working class people would forcibly prevent the activists from using speech unless the principle of “ALL people, oppressors and non-oppressors alike, have a right to free speech” were defended and implemented. This is a huge problem with activists today.
Watch Ken Loach’s wonderful films to see how this problem can lead to activists shooting at good and decent people tomorrow.
Now is the time for activists to start thinking straight on this issue and stop using specious arguments because of their fear of the working class.
Thanks for reminding your readers of this important point, John. We were arguing the very same point back in the late ‘60’s. The rulers’ playbook has some changes, but some things don’t change at all. Btw, do you have a link to The Wind that Shakes the Barley?
Another example of the evil genius of the predatory elites where they are happy to promote hate under the guise of free speech. Pity that the liberal activists are fooled by their anti have-nots psychology into thinking they are on the right side by supporting this hate speech.