Warning: VERY autistic post ahead
the UK won't arrest him for any of this because they love nigger cum
Ver archivo adjunto 7920159
This is weirdly familiar to me. He reminds me of our very own Julius Malema. People like this, who farm white outrage for clout on the left have the same rhetorical strategy in every country
I actually didn't say that, but the thing you are saying I said is correct! (I didn't celebrate his death but I did call him a piece of shit)
This is how normal people come to learn what 'hate speech' laws really are. Most of you have already figured it out. Its a form of psychological domination over the group/groups that the state is afraid of. The idea is to communicate "You aren't even allowed to speak your mind without getting your knees smashed. Don't even think about acting on your opinions". Its a suppression tool in other words. Its also the ultimate expression of state sovereignty over citizens in the context of liberal democracy. In other words its a subtle way for the state to communicate to the people "the people are not in charge of the state, the state is in charge of the people". But I will get to this later. The idea that the law applies equally to people that the state is not actively trying to suppress is ludicrous to most judicial systems. Remember, in most legal systems the legal tests for hate speech are almost entirely 'context dependent'. This means that its up to the judge and the political class to assess which contexts constitute 'hate'.
In 1922 Carl Schmitt penned his famous definition of sovereignty.
Sovereign is he who decides on the exception
For context, Schmitt did not believe that law was self-enforcing. He believed that it was subordinate to political decision makers. A lot of his Jurisprudence stems from this notion. In other words this is a direct refutation of the idea of a "nation of laws, not men". So in this context, Carl Schmitt means to say that a sovereign of a state is the one who decides when a situation is so exceptional that it warrants the suspension of legal norms, temporarily or otherwise, to solve the crisis.
In liberal democracies, free speech is the norm; hate speech bans are the
exception. Who decides what the exception is? Bingo. The state and the judges. In this you can see sort of a dialectic and a contest between the government of the UK and the people of the UK for who gets to decide on the state of exception.
The British People: "Immigration is out of control. The behaviour of the immigrants is damaging cohesion. We need to do something about this. This crisis is the exception"
The British Government: "Actually, this island needs immigration and it will not stop. Therefore YOUR views are problematic and dangerous to social cohesion. Your attitude is the exception that justifies that suspension of free speech
Some black guy who hates Charlie Kirk and offends the sensibility of the natives is not what the UK government considers exceptional. And the UK government is clearly, according to Schmitt, the ultimate sovereignty in the UK. The people have lost. Schmitt, I have to tell you, was an ardent defender of authoritarianism. He is the greatest pro authoritarian jurist. The fact that a democratic government, unknowingly I would imagine, has come to embody his principles is rather concerning.
I don't want to ramble on about this for much longer so I will just make one more observation. Just some food for thought. I believe that once you embody Schmitt's idea of sovereignty, once you believe that it is the natural right of the state to pick sides in society at the expense of majority opinion, Schmitt's next idea is not far behind. I am talking about Schmitt's definition of the political.
"In The Concept of the Political, Schmitt defined “the political” as the tendency of human collectivities to identify each other as “enemies”—that is, as concrete embodiments of “different and alien” ways of life, with whom mortal combat is a constant possibility and frequent reality."
"At its essence, "the political" is grounded in the fundamental opposition between friend and enemy. For Schmitt, the enemy here is not necessarily a private adversary or even one who is morally wicked, but one whose interests "existentially negate" those of one's own group. This conflict, he asserts, is an irreducible feature of political life
Now, I believe that this is a natural outcome in society. I think Schmitt was right. But what is utterly horrifying is the fact that the
British State itself has come to the conclusion that the political class is 'friend' and the British majority is 'enemy' from which "whom mortal combat is a constant possibility and frequent reality.'
