7
Would you support a state that violently suppressed the voices of those (leftists, communists, queers, Muslims, Jews, Freemasons, Zionists, geoengineers, etc.) that deliberately attempt to damage, disrupt, degenerate and decay western civilization for their own or their associates' benefit, or share similar beliefs to those that do?
The harm this causes would be exclusively to those sharing beliefs akin to those listed, and said beliefs would certainly have to be defined by law. Obviously a nation state would have to be professional, fair, and responsible with such powers, and checks and balances would be set in place to prevent the power from spoiling. It would be treated as a regrettable necessity in order to protect the populace from minorities that share sick views which they intend to act upon and spread.
For example, say Amschel the "French" pro-LGBT Zionist Freemason communist geoengineer creates a blog which he advertizes stylishly and cleverly and attracts a large reader base to. For the last several weeks, he has been writing decrepit material targetted at the youth with the intention of corrupting their instinctive morality and making them susceptible or perhaps even curious about Marxist-Leninism. Should a nation's law enforcement organizations be able to investigate this man, monitering his behavior, and progress through a process that would result in the acquisition of a warrant permitting local law enforcement to break down his door, capture and detain him, and question him?
Of course, to prevent a police-state from formulating this would have to be moderated by forces independent of the administration, such as a strict and logically clear constitution or- God forbid- majority vote. This sort of power is extremely undesired under current regimes, but would be desired provided the masses largely agreed with the protection under a benevolent, "far-right" modernized traditional sort of government. In other words, a benevolent one, safeguarded from spoil, eternally. Something a representative democratic Judeo-plutocracy could and would never achieve.
Essentially, what you are being asked is whether or not you believe in exceptions to the 'freedom of speech' rule- explicitly defined destructive ideologies that have reigned chaos in the past (and present).
Bookmarks